autumn 2012 - ukccsrc · autumn 2012 . 1st ukccsrc biannual meeting . 19-20 september . durham ....
TRANSCRIPT
AUTUMN 2012
1st UKCCSRC BIANNUAL MEETING 19-20 September
DURHAM
Hosted by:
Agenda.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2Jon Gibbins - Introduing UKCCSRC.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4Jacqui Williams - Research Councils UK Energy Programme.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26Jon Gluyas - CO2-EOR and Carbon Geo-Storage: UK Perspective.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34Ward Goldthorpe - The Crown Estate CCS Programme.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 73Ian Donaldson - CCS Cost Reduction Taskforce.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 87Stuart Gilfillan - Aquistore.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 98Matthew Billson - CCS DECC update.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 116Steve Milne - New approach to extend durability of sorbent powders.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 127Martin Sweatman - Feasibility of a wetting layer absorption carbon capture process.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 145Eleanor Campbell - AMPGas.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 153Jon Gibbins -GasFACTS.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 163Sai Gu - Computational Modelling and Optimisation of Carbon Capture Reactors.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 180
UK CCS Research Centre
19-20 September 2012
Rosemary Cramp Lecture Theatre, Earth Sciences Building
Durham University
Draft Agenda
Wednesday 19 September
12.30-13.30 Registration Networking Lunch and CCS posters
13.30-14.00 Welcome and UK CCS Research Centre Launch (Jon Gibbins, UK CCS RC Director)
14.00-14.15 Q&A and Discussion
14.15-14.30 CCS research funding update (Jacqui Williams, EPSRC)
14.30-15.15 Keynote Presentation: Enhanced Oil Recovery (Jon Gluyas, Durham University)
15.15–15.45 Refreshment Break
15.45 – 16.15 The Crown Estate CCS Programme (Ward Goldthorpe, The Crown Estate)
16.15-16.45 CCS Cost Reduction Task Force (Ian Donaldson, The Crown Estate)
16.45-17.00 CO2 Injection – UK/Canadian Opportunities (Stuart Gilfillan, University of Edinburgh)
17.00 Close
18.00 Networking Reception (Penthouse Ballroom, Collingwood College)
19.00 Dinner (Collingwood College)
Thursday 20 September
9.00-9.30 Tea/Coffee and Croissants
9.30-10.00 Recent DECC CCS Developments (Matthew Billson, DECC OCCS)
10.00-12.00 Parallel Sessions, either A or B
Session A - Recently Funded Capture Projects
10.00 – 10.15 New Approach to Extend Durability of Sorbent Powders for Multicycle High
Temperature CO2 Capture in Hydrogen (Steve Milne, University of Leeds)
10.15-10.30 Feasibility of a Wetting Layer Absorption Carbon Capture Process Based on Chemical
Solvents (Martin Sweatman, University of Strathclyde
Natural Gas Programme Grants
10.30-10.45 Effective Adsorbents for Establishing Solids Looping as a Next Generation NG PCC
Technology (Hao Liu, University of Nottingham)
10.45-11.00 Adsorption Materials and Processes for Carbon Capture from Gas-Fired Power Plants –
AMPGas (Eleanor Campbell, University of Edinburgh)
11.00-11.30 Coffee break
11.30-11.45 Gas-FACTS: Gas - Future Advanced Capture Technology Options (Jon Gibbins,
University of Edinburgh)
11.45-12.00 Computational Modelling and Optimisation of Carbon Capture Reactors (Jason Cooke,
Cranfield University)
12.00-12.45 Plenary Wrap-up
Session B – EOR Opportunities in the UK and Overseas Injection Collaborations
10.00 – 11.00 EOR Discussion
Stuart Haszeldine, University of Edinburgh
Tony Espie, BP Alternative Energy
11.00-11.30 Coffee break
11.30-12.00 UK EOR Discussion
12.00-12.45 Plenary Wrap-up
12.45-13.45 Networking Lunch
13.45 Close
www.ukccsrc.ac.uk
The UK Carbon Capture and
Storage Research Centre
UKCCSRC
Six Monthly MeetingDurham, 19 September 2012
Delivering Impact,
Developing Leaders,
Shaping Capability
The UKCCSRC is supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council as part of the Research Councils UK Energy
Programme
The UK CCS Research CentreFocal point and driving force for UK CCS fundamental research and academic analysis
Supporting long-term strategic research programmes and national facilities (i.e. filling gap in national capabilities)
Working with range of stakeholders to establish pathways to deliver research results to the end users
£10M funding over 5 years from EPSRC + £3M from DECC + £2.5M from participants
Independent Board appointed by EPSRC
Membership open to all academic researchers with shareable research projects, current or within last 3 years – see www.ukccsrc.ac.uk
First call for proposals just submitted, fast-track work on APGTF priority areas not covered by other funding
The activities of the UKCCSRC are overseen by an independent Board of 7 individuals from CCS stakeholder groupings, appointed by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC).
Philip Sharman (Evenlode Associates) - Board ChairRussell Cooper (National Grid)Tim Dixon (IEA GHG)Tony Espie (BP)Tricia Henton (Board Member, Coal Authority)Robin Irons (E.ON)Edward Rubin (Carnegie Mellon University)Ex officio:Jacqui Williams (EPSRC)Matthew Billson (DECC)
http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/about-centre/management-str ucture/board-members
UKCCSRC Secretariat
Tel. +44 (0) 131 650 8564
Liz Vander Meer Centre Coordinator
Robin Cathcart Network Manager
Leigh Murray Archive, Calendar, Industry CCS
Julia Eighteen Membership, Overseas links
Nicola McRobbie Early Careers
http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/acttrom-0ACTTROM: Advanced Capture Testing in a Transportable , Remotely-Operated Mini-labUKCCSRC Project with DECC and EPSRC funding
http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/carbon-capture-storage-research-centre/pact-shared-facilitiesUKCCSRC
Pilot-Scale Advanced Capture Technology (PACT) Facilities -
Beighton
Amine
Post Combustion Capture
Plant (150 KW)
Coal
S
B
C
G
Control
Units &
System
Integration
Oxygen
Coal
Biomass
AIR
Natural Gas
Gas
Turbine
APU &
Micro-
turbine
<150Kw
Oxy/air-
Solid Fuels
CTF with
EGR
250KW
Coal –
Biomass
blend
Fuels
50KW
Coal –
Biomass
Air/Oxy
FB Reactor
150KW
Gas Mixer
Facilities
Up to
250 KW
O
L
Planned
IGCC
Reactor
(200 KW)
R
Gas
Cleaning
and
Shift
System
Monitoring
Via
Internet
R
E
E
M
A E
E
The Centre is funding commissioning and operating support for
UKCCRSC-PACT for next 5 years, costing 810k, and is also offering
support worth up to 630k for UKCCSRC members and other
academics to undertake new research activities using UKCCSRC-
PACT facilities, to complement £2.9M funding from DECC to
move and set up equipment provided by RWE Npower.
Capture Transport Storage
Post Pre Oxy
Interfaces + Interactions + Interoperability
Bio
ma
s
s
Bio
ma
s
s
Bio
ma
s
s
Pipeline Ship
Po
int
to
po
int
So
lve
nt
So
lid
Me
mb
ra
ne
So
lve
nt
So
lid
Me
mb
ra
ne
Ga
s
ph
ase
De
nse
ph
ase
Hydro-carbon Aquifer
Monitoring
Capacity assessment
Injection engineering
Regulation
Financial Environment
Public acceptance
Complete chains taking CO2 from source to secure geological storage
Industry
Hy
dro
carb
o
ns
Ce
me
nt
Iro
n &
ste
el
Low
carbon
energy
CO2
processing
Oxygen
production
Lon
g/s
ho
rt
dis
tan
c
e
Buffer
storage
Buoy
transfer
• Link research to the way knowledge is applied to implement CCS
• Understand how and where knowledge is applied
• And how R&D know-how gets delivered
• Led by the Research Area Champions and gathering input from a wide range of academic, industry and other stakeholders.
• Results summarised in a RAPID Handbook.
Research and Pathways to Impact Delivery (RAPID)
A. APPLICATION IMPACT TABLES AND RESEARCH SUMMARIES1. What knowledge and related capacity will be neede d to implement CCS?2. To what extent is necessary knowledge and capacity already available to users?
B. RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE ACTIVITIES3. How can gaps in knowledge be met? Sliding scale of UKCCSRC involvement
In-house research from UKCCSRC funds In-house research with external funds
Research with external partnersNo research but UKCCSRC role as informed user
UKCCSRC as information clearing house No UKCCSRC input needed at all
C. KNOWLEDGE DELIVERY ACTIVITIES4. How is knowledge made available to users?Routes depend on knowledge and user
Identify knowledge sources and usersIdentify routes for delivery
Long-term delivery activities
D. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY5. What UKCCSRC-related capacity is required?6. How is this created, maintained and delivered?
e.g. Trained people, Experimental/test facilities, M ethods/standards/regulations, Software etc.
Full Scope for RAPID
4
EMR meeting
15 June 2012
RAPID PHASE 1 TIMETABLE(planned dates from UKCCSRC proposal)
7
Planned
Date
Actual
Date
Notes
13 March 13 March BIS - Discussion of research impacts at APGTF meeting, London – to identify industry
contributors and to develop some of the fundamental concepts
2-3 April 2-3 April UCL - UKCCSC Network meeting and UKCCSRC announcement, introduction to RAPID and
preliminary discussions
wb 7 May 10 May Leeds - Meeting organised around 18 Research Areas – bottom-up consideration of research
18 May Imperial – as above
wb 28 May 11 June Edinburgh - Meeting organised around applications – synergy and commonality between
pathways, range of impacts explored with stakeholders
19 June Imperial – as above
25 June RAPID discussion at UKCCSR Early Career Researchers meeting, Leeds
25 June 2 July GeolSoc, London - Meeting focussing on RAPID results and Phase 1 Call
12-13 July 16 July IMechE, London - Final presentations and discussions (drafting team)
RAPID PHASE 1 HANDBOOK + CALL LAUNCHED 24 JULY
Canada trip – links to storage trialshttp://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/ukccsrc-and-epsrc-challenges-geological-storage-ccs-calls-and-links-research-canada
Canada trip – links to capture
UKCCSRC First Call ProposalsAs of 17 Sept 2012Total number of proposals: 41Total funding requested: £8.15MTotal number of UK institutions involved in proposals: 26
Proposal Costs
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
£0£50
,000
£100,
000
£150,
000
£200,
000
£250,
000
£300,
000
£350,
000
£400,
000
£450,
000
£500,
000
£550,
000
£600,
000
£650,
000
£700,
000
£750,
000
Nu
mb
er
of
pro
po
sals
Application Impact Table Number of Proposals
High Temperature Looping Cycles 1
Industrial (Iron & Steel) 1
Industrial (High Purity Sources) 1
Pre-Combustion Adsorption & Membrane Capture 3
Social Science & Public Perception 3
Oxyfuel Combustion Capture 5
Pre-Combustion Capture from Gasification 5
Economics & Finance 6
Storage Regulation & Licensing 6
Solvent Post-Combustion Capture 6
CO2 & Related Substance Properties 8
Pipeline & Shipping Transport 8
Environmental Impact 9
Post-Combustion (coal & gas) Adsorption 9
Storage 13
CCS Systems 13
Submission AITs varied from one to 5 listings, so numbers in the table above
do not correspond to total submissions.
Industry Capture RAPIDThe UK CCS Research Centre in collaboration with BIS and DECC will be running a series of meetings examining the current status of CCS technologies that would be applicable to UK industries and further technology developments that might be required before commercial deployment.
Outputs will be presentations from meetings describing CCS applications, expert assessments of the underpinning knowledge for CCS implementation and potential routes to deployment. Published December 2012.
Workshops will bring together industry, government, academic and other stakeholders for detailed discussions on specific industry CCS applications, as follows:
Industry Date LocationIron & steel 19 Oct SheffieldCement 22 Oct LondonChemical 23 Oct LondonRefineries, fuel processing 5 Nov EdinburghGlass and other large industrial heat users 7 Nov Sheffield
UKCCSRC – looking ahead
• DECC Commercialisation call? – priority but unclear
• UK energy strategy – role for gas? (& coal & biomass?)
• £5M for EPSRC storage call
• £3M for further internal UKCCSRC calls
• Further funding calls? EU, doctoral training etc.
• Industry co-funding
• RAPID Phase 2 – more research-user involvement
• Links to overseas CCS activities – some funding
• Literature archive – comprehensive range of CCS docs
• Early careers programme
UKCCSRC – strategic issues
• Timing – planning around DECC call dates
• Serving members – but limited resources
• Linking CCS research to CCS delivery - RAPID
• Sustainable CCS academic research funding
(not boom and bust – programme not projects)
(people and careers – inside and outside academe)
• Longer-term research groupings?
(past end of individual consortium projects)
• Links with overseas research – added value?
• Locating international CCS fundamental research in UK
• Funding model up to and post 2017?
Research Councils UKEnergy Programme
An update on our support for CCS
September 2012
Jacqui Williams
Our support for CCS
CCS has been identified as a priority area for the Energy Programme. The Energy Programme supports over £38M in current grants for CCS research and capacity building projects including:The UK CCS Research Centre (£10m from EPSRC)Consortia researching carbon capture, transport and storage; CCU; multi-scale whole systems modelling; CCS for natural gas, eco-systems impacts: kinetics of fluid-rock interactions in reservoirs.
Projects on Cleaner Fossil Fuels and CCS technologies in collaboration with China (NSFC)Science and Innovation award
Centres for Doctoral Training such as the Engineering Doctorate Centre in Efficient Power from Fossil Energy and Carbon Capture TechnologiesA network to link together the research communityResponsive mode, First grants and fellowships.Work with TSB, ETI and DECC to coordinate activities
NERC provide support for storage and environmental CCS research and for institutes such as BGS.
Role of UK CCS Research CentreA vehicle to pull together and coordinate CCS research in the UK, improving cooperation between researchers and taking a whole systems approach as appropriate.A route for industry and other stakeholder involvement in research and for knowledge exchange and input to policy.Lead on coordinating international CCS activities and raising the UK’s profile and ability to compete internationally.Managing data, knowledge and facilities as appropriate.Consider the postgraduate training and skills needs for CCS.Look at medium to long term challenges such as those defined in the DECC R&D roadmap, and develop a strategy on how to work towards how meeting them and helping to accelerate the deployment of CCS.Focus on underpinning science, and seek additional support to address more applied research.Connect with applied research through other funding agencies andindustry.
Growth in Annual Expenditure by Research Theme, 2002-2011
EPSRC Commitments
EPSRC has developed its commitment plan for the current DeliveryPlan period covering period 2011 to 2015. This is shown below together with the profile that was achieved in the previous Delivery plan.
Energy Programme CCS activities 2012/13
CallsFellowship call: early career and established career proposals invited in CCS. Still open.Stage gating of carbon capture and utilisation projects (closed call) £3MGrand Challenge in CCS (EPS research challenges in geological storage) £5M
Future activitiesNERC is considering the outputs of the CCS storage workshops it held earlier in the year.Responsive mode support availablePossible call under FENCO with NorwayWorking with the Centre and networkAgreeing the final scope of EPSRC’s CDT call and which themes to be includedEnergy strategy fellow roadmap workshop for fossil fuels/CCS.
EPSRC/NERC interface
Injection of CO2 and injection sites – e.g. cap rock. Injection EPSRC; cap rock NERCMonitoring, measurement and verification. Depends on focus.Modelling eg of reservoirs. [Generally NERC, fluid dynamics EPSRC]Enhanced oil recovery. [Usually EPSRC]Behaviour and migration of trapped CO2. [NERC]Permeability and porous media. [Usually NERC]Pore scale studies [Probably NERC]Capture and transport and whole systems modelling: EPSRCStorage and environmental aspects of CCS: NERC
Points to note and for discussion
Please help with peer review if you receive requests.
Please seek remit advice from the RCs first if you are unsure which Council to submit to. Use our remit query service. What are the important areas for any future
calls in CCS?Should we be bringing together the CCU and
CCS communities more?
Do you have any examples of impact from RC support that we can use?
1
CO2-EOR and Carbon Geo-storage; A UK Perspective
Jon Gluyas & Simon MathiasDepartment of Earth Sciences
Durham University
UKCCSC, Durham, UK
September 2012Email: [email protected]
2
Outline� Part 1 CO2-EOR in context
� Displacement & sweep efficiency
� Thief zones & gravity segregation
� WAG, SWAG and FAWAG
� Summary
� Part 2 Application & UK Potential
� The prize
� CO2 supply and facilities longevity
� Costing the earth & saving the planet
� The CO2-EOR heritage
3
Denver Unit of the Wasson Field, West Texas
NETL CO2-EOR Primer (2010)
4
Thermal methods
Steam injection leads to reduced oil viscosity.
Air injection leads to in situ combustion.
Gas injection
Includes injection of natural gas, nitrogen and CO2.
Injected gas displaces oil.
If reservoir pressure is sufficiently high the gas dissolves into the
oil leading to reduced oil viscosity and volume swelling.
Chemical methods
Polymers are used to change the viscosity of injection water
Surfactants (like detergent) are used to reduce surface tension
5
Reegtien (2010) SPE 136034
Maturation curve for EOR
6
� Improve displacement efficiency (micro-
scale)
� Improve sweep efficiency (macro-scale)
What are we trying to do?
Al-Shuraiqi et al.
12th European Symposium on IOR
From SPE 97270
Residually
trapped oil
Rock
grainsFlow of oil
Adapted from CO2CORC
Water
7
Electron photomicrograph of a
sandstone
1 mm
Pore-space
Pore-
throat
Displacement efficiency (micro-scale)
(Price, 1996)
8
If the rock is water wet, water adheres to the sides of
the pores due to surface tension.
Residual trapping
(Extracted from Tchelepi, 2009)
OilWater
9
If the rock is water wet, water adheres to the sides of
the pores due to surface tension.
As water moves upwards oil is displaced.
But as the water passes through the pore throat,
some of the oil is trapped.
(Extracted from Tchelepi, 2009)
OilWater
Residual trapping
10
Surfactants (like detergent) reduce surface tension
allowing oil to connect into a continuous phase.
Application of surfactants
OilWater
11
Sweep efficiency (macro-scale)
� Viscous fingering
� Poor conformance
� Gravity segregation
12
Viscous fingeringMobility ratio is essentially the ratio
of displacing to recovering fluid
viscosity. Very small (or large)
mobility ratios lead to poor sweep.
Ultimately, the front can become
unstable and viscous fingering can
occur.
Mobility ratio can be favourably
modified by increasing CO2 viscosity
by polymer addition.
[ ] 21)1(2 −+−= γγ DD hx
(Zhang et al. 1997, Chem Eng Sci 52:37-54)
13
Poor conformance
ProductionInjection
CO2
Oil
CO2 often travels
preferentially through
high permeability thief
zones.
ProductionInjection
CO2
Oil
Sealing thief zones
with gel or foam can
lead to significantly
enhanced sweep
efficiency.
14
Identification of thief-zones
See for example Butler et al. (2009, Hydrogeology Journal 17:1849–1858) or Li et al. (2010, SPE 116286)
15
(Mathias et al. 2006, Water Resour. Res. 43: W07443)
Identification of flowing horizons
16
Gravity segregation
ProductionInjection
CO2
Oil
De
pth
Permeability
De
pth
PermeabilityProduction
Injection
CO2
Oil
Use foam or gel to
reduce permeability.
17
Application of gel for gas cut-off
Production
Gas
Oil
Water
See for example Al Dhafeeri et al. (2008, SPE 114323)
Localised application of gel reduces permeability
under gas cap leading to reduced gas production
due to coning.
18
WAG: Water Alternating Gas
Pulsing of water and gas leads to reduced composite
mobility due to residual trapping of gas. However, gravity
segregation can still be an issue.
SWAG: Simultaneous Water And Gas
Simultaneous injection of water and gas at the top and
bottom of reservoir, respectively. Should reduce gravity
segregation but often limited by poor injectivity.
FAWAG: Foam Assisted WAG
Same as WAG but with surfactant. Combined surfactant and
gas leads to foam generation which reduces the mobility of
the gas.
See Aladasani and Bai (2010, SPE 130726) and Anwan et al. (2008, SPE99546)
19
Summary� The aim of CO2-EOR is to mix residing oil with CO2 to
reduce oil viscosity and increase oil volume.
� The challenge is to improve displacement (micro-
scale) and sweep (macro-scale) efficiency of the CO2.
� Gravity segregation and thief zones are significant
problems for large carbonate reservoirs.
� Gels, foams and WAG strategies represent a range of
mitigating technologies (which reduce CO2 mobility),
which can be used in various combinations to
optimise various effects.
20
CO2-EOR – Texas� Initiated 1970s in response to oil crisis� Texas at forefront of technology & leads the way today� Permian Basin in NW Texas is the primary injection area� 1000s km 32” pipeline & associated infrastructure developed� Natural & anthropogenic CO2 sources used
21
CO2-EOR – Technology
� Water Alternating Gas (WAG)• CO2 injected to swell oil and increase fluidity• H2O injection to displace oil to production wells
� Gravity Stable Gas Injection (GSGI)• CO2 injected at field crest• Stabilising pressure and promoting gravity drainage
� Miscible flood – critical CO2 dissolved in oil • swelling oil, viscosity reduced surface tension reduced
� Immiscible CO2 displacement• Partial dissolution in oil may reduce viscosity substantially
22
Schematic WAG
http://www.netl.doe.gov/scngo/Petroleum/publications/eordrawings/eordraw.html
23
How much additional recovery?
� West Texas 4-12% of STOIIP (observed)• 60+ projects (~100 world wide)
� US DOE 7-14% of STOIIP (calculated)� Institute for Energy (Netherlands) 9-18% STOIIP of
UK, Norwegian & Danish fields (calculated)
� This study (2009) UK additional 3-8bn bbl� DECC (2012) UK mean additional recovery 5.7bn
(5-15% of STOIIP)
24
How much CO 2 is used?
� 0.1 to 0.45 pore volumes injected� Typically 1 (net*) tonne of CO2 injected delivers 2.5 to 5
bbl oil (average 3 bbl)� Tapered WAG (decreasing CO2 volumes) most effective
*Net = total injected - recycled
25
UK Oil Fields
Moray Firth &
Central N Sea
Viking
Graben
From Gluyas & Hichens, 2003
26
UK Offshore Oil Reserve
Proven Probable P+P Possible Maximum
Cumulative Oil Production in millions tonnes (bnbbl)
3315
(24.9)
Estimated Ultimate recovery in millions tonnes (bnbbl)
3723(27.9)
361(2.7)
4048(30.4)
360(2.7)
4444(33.3)
https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/information/bb_updates/chapters/Table4_3.htm
27
UKCS Recovery Factors ~45%
� High End - Piper – recovery factor >70%� Low End - Lyell – recovery factor ~5%
Jayasekera &
Goodyear SPE 75171
28
UKCS & West Texas Oil Fields
UKCS
� Sandstones� Most > 2.7 km deep� Most > 90ºC� Light oil ~35-40API� Typically high quality
(permeability – 100s mD)� Line drive water floods for
secondary recovery� Low well density
West Texas
� Sandstones & dolomites� 1.2 to 1.8 km deep� 15-60ºC� Light oil 30-42API� Typically low quality
(permeability 4-16 mD)� Pattern floods
l� High well density
29
UKCS vs West Texas
� West Texas – incremental oil recovery 4-12% of STOIIP
� CO2 is expected to be miscible (or nearly so) with current conditions in the UKCS oil reservoirs
� UKCS fields more permeable and at higher temperature than those in West Texas – both factors may favour the North Sea
From Goodyear et al, IEA EOR Caracas 2002
30
UKCS – The Prize
� Assuming UKCS:• Reserve of 30,000mmbbl• STOIIP 30,000/0.45 = 67,000mmbbl
� From West Texas 4-12% additional recovery of STOIIP• Yields 2,700 – 8,000 mmbbl technical reserves
• Requiring ~1 t CO2 per 3bbl*
� For ~3,000 mmbbl, ~1,000 Mt CO2 required
*range 2.5 to 5 bbl/tonne
31
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/climate_change/climate_change.aspx
� Scotland 19mm tonnes� North East 21mm tonnes� Yorkshire 27mm tonnes
100km
UK oil province
UK Industrial CO 2 production 2007
32
Supply & Demand
� Assuming all industrial CO2 from the eastern UK could be available for CO2-EOR yields 60-70mm tonnes per annum
� Over a 15-25 year period (ie typical CO2-EOR project length) this would use 1 billion tonnes CO2 …. the quantity required to optimise CO2-EOR in the North Sea
33
Are UK Oil Fields Ready For CO2-EOR?
Arbroath Claymore
MaureenNinian
34
The Time is Right (but don’t wait)
Jayasekera & Goodyear SPE 75171
UKCS Shrinking Infrastructure
35
UK Security of Supply
DECC publication 2008
Shortfall in 2010
~15 mm tonnes
Equivalent to
~300,000 bopd
Equivalent to
Initiating ~1/3 potential CO2-EOR projects
36
Costing the Earth?
� For the North Sea• There is no CO2 infrastructure• There is no ‘ready’ source of CO2
• The first project will be an enormous commitment
37Capture, Transportation, Injection & FacilitiesMorecambe, Magnus & Miller
38
Saving the Planet
� 1bbl of oil contains ≡ 0.42 t CO2 after combustion� 1bbl produced by CO2-EOR requires between 0.4 and 0.2 t
CO2
� At best – the process is carbon neutral� At worst – the process is halving emissions
39
CO2-EOR Heritage
� The CO2 production from eastern UK could ‘power’CO2-EOR in the North Sea for 10-15 years per project, over ~30 year period
� It could deliver:• Improved security of oil supply• Infrastructure usable for carbon
capture • Increased tax revenues over
current projections
Deep aquifer storage area
The Crown Estate CCS (CTS)
Programme
Dr Ward Goldthorpe
UK CCS Research Centre19-20 September 2012, Durham University
Introduction to The Crown Estate
The Crown Estate in its current form dates from 1760
•The Crown Estate manages a £8 billion property portfolio
across the UK: Urban, Rural, Energy & Infrastructure, Marine,
Windsor
•Over the last ten years The Crown Estate has paid over
£2 billion to the Treasury
The Crown Estate’s Storage Rights
Within the territorial limit (12nm)
• Owner of the seabed
• Property rights over surface and sub-surface
On the UK continental shelf
• UK Gas Importation and Storage Zone
• Vested rights under the Energy Act 2008
The UK Licensing/Leasing Regime
Appraisal Construction Operation Closure Post Closure
DECC Carbon Dioxide Storage Licence
DECC Carbon Dioxide Storage Permit
Agreement for Lease
Storage Lease
The Crown Estate’s CTS Objectives
Work with UK government to facilitate deployment of large scale CCS projects during the next 5-10 years
Prepare for competitive storage leasing and project selection beyond the UK commercialisation programme
Developing the CO2 Transport and Storage
Market
Demonstration
• Capital support
• Risk allocation
• Site access
Transition
• Support mechanisms
• Fiscal incentives
• Regulation reform
Market
• Value transfer
• Competitive services
• Market returns
Re-Framing CCS Industry Development
Storage
• Site Access
• Certification
• Liability and Risk
• Exploration/Appraisal
• Facilities/Storage Capacity
• Co-location
• Site Access
• Certification
• Liability and Risk
• Exploration/Appraisal
• Facilities/Storage Capacity
• Co-location
Transport
• Pipeline Capacity
• Pipeline Corridors
• Coastal Interactions
• Clustering
• Pipeline Capacity
• Pipeline Corridors
• Coastal Interactions
• Clustering
Capture
• Emissions Performance Standards
• Contract for Difference
• Carbon Price Floor
• Capacity Mechanism
• Industrial Processes
• Emissions Performance Standards
• Contract for Difference
• Carbon Price Floor
• Capacity Mechanism
• Industrial Processes
Crown Estate Programme Activities
• Spatial planning
• Resource assessment
• Facilitating access to storage sites
• Infrastructure planning
• RD&D and Joint Industry Projects
• Potential co-investment
• Spatial planning
• Resource assessment
• Facilitating access to storage sites
• Infrastructure planning
• RD&D and Joint Industry Projects
• Potential co-investment
Adding value to the sector
• Designing lease competitions
• Selecting projects
• Designing lease competitions
• Selecting projects
Commercial Leasing
Challenges to Accessing Potential CO2
Storage Sites
Competitive Leasing and
Licensing prior to Cessation of
Production
Pre-existing Rights and Liabilities
Co-existing Legal Regimes: Petroleum and
CO2 Storage
Transitional Access
Arrangements: Facilities and
Data
Managing Infrastructure Design and
Deployment
Offshore Facilities
Co-location InteractionsCo-location Interactions
Flight Exclusion
Zones
Flight Exclusion
Zones
Safety Exclusion
Zones
Safety Exclusion
Zones
Seabed
Transmission Grid
Transmission Grid
Pipeline NetworkPipeline Network
CablesCables
Aggregates and Minerals
Aggregates and Minerals
Coast
Cable and Pipe Corridors
Cable and Pipe Corridors
Coastal CrossingsCoastal Crossings InterconnectsInterconnects
Strategic RD&D Objectives
Robust evaluation and selection of storage
proposals
Robust evaluation and selection of storage
proposals
Geostatistics and probability density functions for reservoir
and aquifer site characterisation
Measurement, monitoring and verification techniques
Corrective measures and remedial action
Facilitate optimised CO2
transport and storage infrastructure development
Facilitate optimised CO2
transport and storage infrastructure development
Aquifer injectivity, pressure management, and containment
Pipeline standards and network/cluster design
Offshore CO2 enhanced oil recovery with storage
Non-technical Site Leasing Issues
• DEVELOPMENT
• Access and Transfer Arrangements
• Liability Treatment
• DEVELOPMENT
• Access and Transfer Arrangements
• Liability Treatment
• ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY
• Co-existing Licences/Lease
• Carbon Accounting
• ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY
• Co-existing Licences/Lease
• Carbon Accounting
• APPRAISAL
• Access
• Liability and Interface Conditions
• APPRAISAL
• Access
• Liability and Interface Conditions
• EXPLORATION
• Co-location
• Interface Arrangements
• EXPLORATION
• Co-location
• Interface Arrangements
Saline Formation
Field Extension
Depleted Field
Producing Field
Matching UK CO2 Emissions Sources and
Storage Sites
50 largest UK sources of CO2
Power plant
Petrochemical/ refinery
Steel/ cement works
CO2 concentrations
Condensate fields
Gas fields
Oil fields
UK Continental Shelf storage sites
East Irish Sea Basin
Faroe-Shetland Basin
UK Northern & Central North Sea Basin
UK Southern North Sea Basin
Spatial Planning and Co-location
CCS Cost Reduction Taskforce
Synthesis Report
Development
Overview
In May 2012 Jeff Chapman (Taskforce Chair and Chief Executive, CCSA) was tasked by Charles Hendry (then Minister for Energy) to undertake an exercise to determine cost reduction opportunities for CCS.
Assisted by The Crown Estate and OCCS, the project was established.
In May 2012 Jeff Chapman (Taskforce Chair and Chief Executive, CCSA) was tasked by Charles Hendry (then Minister for Energy) to undertake an exercise to determine cost reduction opportunities for CCS.
Assisted by The Crown Estate and OCCS, the project was established.
Goal
Develop an endorsed series of options (possible development pathways) for cost reduction of CCS projects by 2020 / 2030.
Identify pre-requisites to meet pathways
Develop an endorsed series of options (possible development pathways) for cost reduction of CCS projects by 2020 / 2030.
Identify pre-requisites to meet pathways
• Jeff ChapmanChief Executive
• Ward GoldthorpeProgramme Manager
• Jason GolderSenior Development Manager
• Ian DonaldsonProject Manager
• Phil HareVice President
• Stuart MurraySenior Consultant
• Andy HoustonPrincipal Consultant
• Jonathan OvertonDeputy Head – Strategy & Policy Coordination
• Patrick DixonExpert Chair
Core TaskforceSociete Generale Costain
Gassnova Shell
CCS TLM Statoil
ETI Norton Rose
SSE E.On
Scottish Government CO2DeepStore
Alstom AMEC
Scottish CCS TCM
Air Liquide National Grid Carbon
Scottish Enterprise/Industry
and Power Association
CCSA
Progressive Energy
Additional input sought from:Zurich BNP Paribas
Element Energy RBS
BGS Doosan Babcock
2CO
Approach and Methodology
Following the success of the
Offshore Wind Cost Reduction
Pathways study, a similar approach
was adopted…
Following the success of the
Offshore Wind Cost Reduction
Pathways study, a similar approach
was adopted…
1. Appoint consultants
2. Appoint taskforce
3. Develop model / skeletal framework
4. Conduct workshops
5. Conduct one-to-one discussions
6. Collate and synthesise
7. Publish (Q1 2013)
Approach and Methodology
Model Development
Report drafting
One-to-one
Workshops
Appoint Publish
Emerging Themes
Significant opportunities for cost
reduction identified in all three work
streams:
•Generation and Capture
•Infrastructure and Planning
•Commercial and Finance
Significant opportunities for cost
reduction identified in all three work
streams:
•Generation and Capture
•Infrastructure and Planning
•Commercial and Finance
Emerging Themes
However accessing these savings by the 2020s requires significant progress before that point:
•Strong track record of operational CCS in the UK by 2020
•De-risking of a variety of storage options (DOGF, Aquifer, EOR)
•Long run policy commitment to drive economies of scale, get finance community involved and build up supply chain
However accessing these savings by the 2020s requires significant progress before that point:
•Strong track record of operational CCS in the UK by 2020
•De-risking of a variety of storage options (DOGF, Aquifer, EOR)
•Long run policy commitment to drive economies of scale, get finance community involved and build up supply chain
Emerging Themes
Cost savings will not just happen - we
will need investment in earlier,
higher cost projects to access later
cost savings.
Cost savings will not just happen - we
will need investment in earlier,
higher cost projects to access later
cost savings.
QUESTIONS?
CO2 Injection – UK/Canadian Research
Opportunities
PTRC’s Aquistore Project
Stuart Gilfillan
University of Edinburgh
Who are PTRC?
Not-for-profit corporation founded in 1998
Based in Regina, Saskatchewan
Promote research & development in EOR and CCS
Founded by:
Aquistore Project- Independent research and
monitoring project
Objectives:
- Demonstrate CO2 storage in
deep saline formation is a
safe, workable solution to
reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions
- Develop best methods &
technologies to monitor GHG
- Involve research
institutions, policy makers,
industry, and public
Aquistore Location
CO2 injected into large regional saline aquifer within Williston Basin
Aquistore Overview- Designed to inject 2000 tonnes CO2/day
- $22.3M in sponsorship secured to date
- UKCCSRC - £100,000
- Buffer protection and long-term storage option for SaskPower’s Boundary Dam Carbon Capture Project
- Project split into 2 phases:1. Demonstration & Evaluation
2. CO2 Injection and Monitoring
Phase 1 - Demonstration & Evaluation- Site selection, permits, agreements, community engagement
- Risk assessment, seismic surveys, monitoring programs
- Compilation of existing fluid flow data
- Drilling and evaluation of injection well
- Drilling of observation well
- Water injection test
Project Risk Assessment
Risk Assessment Workshop
- Held in August 2011
- Top risks were identified
SLB Carbon Services Risk
Assessment
- Identify features, events,
processes (FEPs) which
could lead to negative
outcomes
- Solicit expert opinion
Management
- RACI Matrix Chart, Risk
Response Plan
Phase 1 - Project Schedule
Phase 2 - CO2 Injection & Monitoring
- On going monitoring and
observation
- On going community
engagement
- 2013 - Pipeline tie-in CO2 from
Boundary Dam Power Station
- 2014 - World’s first commercial
carbon capture technology
applied to a coal plant and the
sale of CO2 for EOR/storage.
- SaskPower take over operation
Aquistore Subsurface Model
Injection Well Design- Well depth: 3396 m
-Drilled into Pre-Cambrian
basement
-Pressure sensors on outside of
casing and on injection string
-Lower 230m chrome steel and
lower cement CO2 resistant
-3 x 18m cores taken:
Seal (Icebox Shale)
2 in Winnipeg-Deadwood
20 sidewall cores
Also DST, Logging program
Well Evaluation ProgramSide wall Coring
- Porosity and CO2 relative permeability
Logging – TD section
- Gamma Ray/SP/Resistivity/Density/
Neutron
- Sonic Compressional and Dipole Shear
- Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
- Formation Elemental Analysis
- MDT: formation pressure & 3 fluid samples
- MDT: minifrac tests
- Indicate minimum injectivity of 1500t/day
Logging – Cased hole
-Ultra sonic cement imager
Observation Well Design
No further funding for coring or detailed logging
Measurement, Monitoring & Verification
MMV Key Elements:
• Baseline 3D seismic survey
• Time-lapse seismic surveys
• Permanent seismic array
• Real-time pressure & temperature
• Passive seismic
• Downhole fluid sampling
• Time-lapse logging & VSP’s
• Groundwater & Soil Gas
• Surface gravity
• Permanent tiltmeters
• InSAR
• GPS
• Cross-well seismic
MMV is designed for:
1) project/plume monitoring
2) public assurance
3) research objectives
Tiltmeter in the field
3D Seismic Survey
- 3D Baseline Surface Seismic
Survey
- Acquisition : UniQ, acquired
March 2012
- Survey covered ~30sq km
• source line interval: 288m;
source interval: 36m
• receiver line interval: 288m;
receiver interval: 6m
Permanent Seismic Array
Permanent Array 630 geophone
array covering a ~12 sq km area
- Installed: sparse 160m x 160m
grid at a depth of 20m
Public CommunicationsTo Date:
- Kitchen table visits: landowners
- Info sessions: City, RM, MP&MLA
- Open house & Chamber Session
- Media Event with Tour
- Several Tours for Sponsors
- Articles in CCS journals
- Website & other products
Going Forward:
- Tours for Landowners
- Release of results of baseline
- Small Group Presentations to
students/teachers; community
organizations, etc.
- Second Open House
- Second focused Media Event
Project Status
- Land owner/lessee agreements complete, Nov `11
- Environmental Permits received from provincial and federal authorities, Jan `12
- Seismic program complete, March ’12
- Open House held Apr ’12
- Spudded 1st Well, July’12
- Stakeholder Tours, July-Sept’12
- UKCCSRC join project, Aug ‘12
CCS – DECC update20 Sept 2012
Matthew BillsonOffice of Carbon Capture & Storage
2
Key messages
• Next few months will be a busy time for CCS
• Commercialisation Programme (£1bn + annual payments under EMR) on track
• Need to start thinking about “what next”…
A reminder - UK Energy challenges
3
Around a quarter of our plant will close by 2020
Electricity demand could double by 2050
Up to £110bn investment in new generation and transmission to 2020 likely to be required – over double the investment that has come forward in the last
decade.
Need to decarbonise – 80% reduction by 2050
4
CCS – current Government activity
CCS Roadmap – Apr 2012
Commercialisation Programme
• £1bn commitment to portfolio of projects
£125m R&D Programme
• UK CCS Research Centre
Financing & a long term market
• Electricity Market Reform proposals
Regulation and infrastructure
• 3rd party access to CO2 pipelines and storage sites
• Removed barriers to reusing existing (gas etc) pipelines
5
CCS activity in the next few months
Sept – Dec 2012
CCS TINA published
6
Technology Innovation Needs Assessment (TINAs)
CCS TINA
• Published Aug 2012 (http://www.lowcarboninnovation.co.uk/working_togethe r/technology_focus_areas/carbon_capture_and_storage/ )
• Innovation through learning by research: £10-45bn cost reduction
• Mid scenario (1.5GW 2020; 30GW 2050) gives saving of £22bn
Bioenergy TINA• Published Sept 2012• Innovation could save £6-101bn• Mid scenario calculated to be £42bn
7
CCS activity in the next few months
Sept – Dec 2012
CCS TINA published
$1.35bn, 1m/t CO2 pa Quest project go-ahead
£24m Gas CCS pilot (c5-10MW) details announced
Aberthaw 3MWe post-comb pilot operational
DECC £20m CCS Innovation results
Energy Bill 2012
8
Potential financing model
Con
stru
ctio
n P
hase
Financing from project developers / investors
NER300 Capital contribution
CCS Competition up-front capital
CCS Competition funding
Stu
dies
Project developer funding
Ope
ratio
nal P
hase
(ann
ual p
aym
ent)
Income from electricity market
Income from CCS “Contract for Difference”(set at rate to recoup investment
as well as operational costs)
Financing from Green Investment Bank
“£1bn”
9
CCS activity in the next few months
Sept – Dec 2012
CCS TINA published
$1.35bn, 1m/t CO2 pa Quest project go-ahead
£24m Gas CCS pilot (c5-10MW) details announced
Aberthaw 3MWe post-comb pilot operational
DECC £20m CCS Innovation results
Energy Bill 2012
DECC £1bn results
10
Other business…
• Free advice for FP7 applications:– [email protected]
• OCCS Internship– Opportunity to work in heart of Government
– 6-8 week period
– This offer is valid across this current academic year (October 2012 – June 2013) so specific dates are negotiable.
– The placement will be unpaid, although DECC will contribute to travel and accommodation expenses
– Send a cover letter explaining your interest and availability, and CV to [email protected] , 29 Oct 2012
11
Key messages
• Next few months will be a busy time for CCS
• Commercialisation Programme (£1bn + annual payments under EMR) on track
• Need to start thinking about “what next”…
Any questions?
New Approach to Extend Durability of
Sorbent Powders for Multicycle High
Temperature CO2 Capture in Hydrogen
Production by Steam reformingProduction by Steam reforming
A P Brown, V Dupont, S J Milne
Institute for Materials Research,
Energy and Resources Research Institute
University of Leeds
Project Aims
• Produce CO2 sorbent powders containing
additives designed to prevent loss of capture
capacity after repeated high temperature
carbonation and de-carbonation reactionscarbonation and de-carbonation reactions
• Evaluate the powders for use in sorbent
enhanced steam reforming of biomass
Project Details
• Responsive mode (Engineering)
• 18 month proof of principle study
• Commence Nov 1, 2012
Enhanced hydrogen production from
biomass with in-situ CO2 capture using
CaO sorbents
• Steam gasification of biomass
Reforming CnHmOp + (2n-p)H2O = nCO2 + (m/2 + 2n – p)H2
If reaction at is coupled to CO capture (instantaneous)If reaction at is coupled to CO2 capture (instantaneous)
Shift chemical equilibrium
Increase H2 yield N H Florin, A T Harris Chemical
Engineering Science 63, 287 (2008)
CaO sorbent:
(i) decreases temperature of high H2 yield ( to 550-600 °C)
(ii) H2 yield increased by ~ 15%
(iii) H2 purity, >90 vol %
V Dupont
Sorbent Powders
for Multicycle Sorbent Enhanced Steam
Reforming (SESR)
• Calcium oxide carbonate 500-700 °C CaO + CO2→ CaCO3
regenerate 750-950 °C CaCO3 → CaO + CO2
• Sodium zirconate Na2ZrO3 + CO2 = Na2CO3 + ZrO2
High Molar Conversion during carbonation (initial)
MO + CO2 → MCO3
High Durability after repeated regeneration at high temperatures
MCO3 → MO +CO2
Durability Problems
Sintering of Ceramic Particles
• High Temperature Regeneration ( ≤ 950 °C):
diffusion, mass transport
• Pore shrinkage (Densification)
Particle/grain growth
• Reduction in surface area
• Reduction in CO2 Capture Capacity (unreacted CaO)
• Onset temperatures and extent of sintering depend
on: particle composition
particle size (and agglomeration)
atmosphere
Sintering Mechanisms
Randall M. German
Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences, 35:263–305, 2010
Methods to Improve Durability
• Replenish sorbent
• Steam reactivation
• Add second phase refractory particles
Additives to Suppress Sintering
of CaO
• Second phase particles
Al2O3, SiO2, ZrO2 20-30 wt% Ca12Al14O33 (mayenite)
• Physical separation of sorbent particles• Physical separation of sorbent particles
Inhibit sintering of sorbent phase
Improve multicycle durability
• Further room for improvement, especially at high calcination temperatures
Proposed Alternative Approach
• Additive which undergoes volume expansion after
decarbonation (800-950 °C)
• Partially stabilised zirconia, PSZ
ZrO -Y O (1-2 % Y O )ZrO2-Y2O3 (1-2 % Y2O3)
• Tetragonal- Monoclinic phase transition on cooling:
volume expansion, crack initiation through sintered
sorbent
• Open up pore channels, expose new surfaces for
gas/solid reaction
Phase Diagram: ZrO2-Y2O3
Microcracked Alumina
Toughened CeramicsTune Tt-m to ~ 600 °C by varying Y2O3
Expansion between calcination and absorption
temperatures
Schematic Powder Bed: before sintering
PSZ
additive
Spray Drying
MicrocrackingIndividual CaO
particle/grain
Calcination, sintering
800-950 ° CTet-Mon on cooling
600 ° C
Powder Compositions
• CaO + PSZ
• Na2 ZrO3 + PSZ
• Micron powders
• Challenges
interdiffusion CaO and PSZ? (Al2O3 coating)
initiate cracking at elevated temperatures?
Objectives
• A. ----Optimise PSZ and sorbent particle
properties for maximising microcrack formation
in CaO and Na2ZrO3: achieve high molar
conversion ratios for 950 C calcinationconversion ratios for 950 C calcination
temperatures, using PSZ loadings 10-20 vol%.
• B. Exploit spray drying to retain high uniformity of
PSZ particle distributions and use organic
sacrificial templates to control granule internal
pore sizes, total volume and pore connectivity.
ctd
• C. Determine, and understand, relationships
between CO2 uptake capacity, durability and
degree of PSZ phase transformation in the
sorbent matrix at different densities sorbent matrix at different densities
(regeneration temperatures).
• D. Examine effects of impurity gasses and
hydration steps on multi-cycle capacity and
durability.
ctd
• E. In parallel, outside the project, evaluate the
performance of the best powder in sorption
enhanced steam reforming being developed
by Dupont (CI) to produce H2 from waste by Dupont (CI) to produce H2 from waste
biomass; compare to performance of a
CaO:Ca12Al14O33 sorbent presently being used
in this role.
Thank-you
Feasibility of a wetting layer absorption carbon capture process based on
chemical solvents
Martin Sweatman, Ashleigh Fletcher, Siddharth PatwardhanDepartment of Chemical and Process Engineering,
University of Strathclyde
Stefano Brandani, Xianfeng FanSchool of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Project Overview
• EP/J019704/1 (Strathclyde) and EP/J019720/1 (Edinburgh)• £1.23M award in total – 4 PDRAs for 2.5 to 3 years
Edinburgh StrathclydeStefano Brandani Xianfeng Fan Martin Sweatman Ashleigh Fletcher Siddharth Patwardhan
• Post-combustion CO2 capture• Feasibility study – fundamentals, new concepts and materials• Green and cheap• ‘Wetting Layer Absorption’: attempts to combine aspects of adsorption and absorption
• Try to increase interfacial area of standard absorption process
• Impregnated sorbents are not new – novelty of WLA is optimising solvent partial pressure
• Clearly limited to sub-saturated solvent partial pressures
• Could potentially use physical or chemical solvents
• EP/F061285/1 looked at physical solvents; this project examines chemical solvents (amines)
• Clearly, there will be issues with leaching – will need to recycle solvent
Wetting layer absorption for carbon capture (M.B. Sweatman, Chem. Eng. Sci. 65, p3907 (2010)).
1 2 3
Amine Impregnated Sorbents(reviewed by Bollini, Didas and Jones, J. Mat. Chem. 21, 15100 (2011))
• Physically impregnated sorbents:o Easy to make through solvent assisted wet impregnationo Typically high working capacity – depends on amine loadingo Variable kinetics – depends on amine loading and distributiono CO2 recovery via TSA – can be slower due to thermal transporto Probably lower regeneration penalty than amine scrubbing tower (no water)o Creates ‘tacky’ particleso Amine leaching can be a problem
Amine Impregnated Sorbents(reviewed by Bollini, Didas and Jones, J. Mat. Chem. 21, 15100 (2011))
• Chemically impregnated sorbents:o Moderate to high working capacity – depends on amine loadingo Typically good kinetics – amine usually confined to surfaceo CO2 recovery via TSA or steam – generally quickero Generally lower regeneration penalty than amine scrubbing tower (no water)o Amine leaching much less of a problemo Hazardous and expensive to make – several steps involving harsh chemicals
Generally good resistance to water vapour, and somet imes steamVariable resistance to oxidationResistance to other impurities generally unknown
Wetting layer absorption – proof of concept
• Wet impregnation of porous materials is well known; need to test vapour impregnation
• Performed basic test of vapour impregnation of AC with propylamine• 4.5 mmol propylamine/gram AC (21% propylamine by weight)• CO2 purge for 30 sec at 1 bar• 0.9 mmol CO 2/gram AC = 0.2 mol CO 2 per mol N• Vapour impregnation compares well with wet impregnation
• Quick estimate based on TEPA at 1% of saturation pressure suggests 8 litres of solvent will be recycled per 30 min cycle for 1GW power station
propylamine AC
CO2
propylamine vapour
impregnated AC
Our project• WP1: Synthesis and characterisation of materials and solvents (SP, AF, PDRA1 )
o Preparation of porous templated silicas with range of pore sizes
o Preparation of ‘green’ porous silicas via bioinspired routes
o Preparation and purchase of porous carbons with range of pore sizeso Purchase of range of amines
o Characterisation of all materials and solvents
• WP2: CO2 adsorption experiments (AF, SB, PDRA1, PDRA2)o Fast screening of CO2 capacity and kinetics of porous template/amine systems using
Zero Length Columno Detailed analysis of promising combinations using IGA
� Selectivity, cycling, impurities, TSA/PSA recovery of CO2
• WP3: Molecular modelling for pore-level understanding (MS, PDRA3)o Pore-level understanding to help interpret and guide experiments; effect of
� Pore size, reaction constant, surface type, temperature, solvent partial pressure� Capillary condensation and wetting of solvent
• WP4: Feasibility of cyclic process (SB, XF, PDRA4)o Pre-loading solvent, recovery and recycling of leached solvent
o Recovery of CO2, TSA/PSA + novel method
o Mass transfer data from dual-piston apparatus
o Process modelling
Thankyou for listening
Thankyou EPSRC
Adsorption Materials and Processes for
Carbon Capture from Gas-Fired
Power Plants: AMPGas
(EPSRC: EP/J02077X/1)
PI: Prof. Stefano Brandani (University of Edinburgh)
Dr. Hyungwoog Ahn, Dr. M. Chiara Ferrari
CoI:Prof. Eleanor Campbell (EaStCHEM, University of Edinburgh)
CoI: Prof. Paul Wright (EaStCHEM, University of St Andrews)
CoI: Dr. Humphrey Yiu (Heriot-Watt University)
Objectives:
� Develop novel design and synthesis routes for adsorbent
materials for carbon capture from flue gases of gas-fired power
plants
� Develop methodologies for rapid screening of materials based on
equilibrium and kinetic properties
� Develop rapid thermal swing cycles to reduce plant size
� Predict the performance of an integrated adsorption carbon
capture process coupled to a gas fired power plant
� Interact closely with stakeholders and end users to define case
studies and enhance the uptake of the results of the research.
Challenges:
� Low CO2 concentration in the flue gas (4% by volume)
� Conventional amine processes have a large energy penalty and the
presence of high concentration of O2 leads to high amine deactivation
rates
� Not possible to consider pressure swing adsorption for adsorbent
regeneration (due to very low partial pressure of CO2)
� Need highly selective materials and regeneration by thermal cycling
1. Design of adsorbents for CO2 capture from very dilute gas
streams
2. Evaluation of adsorbents
3. Development of bench scale prototype of rotary wheel
adsorber and detailed dynamic model
The Project
Achievements in ‘Innovative gas separations for
carbon capture’
Optimised adsorption of CO2 at 0.1 bar, 303 K over microporous solids
•selectivity in small pore MOFs by functionalisation
•uptake in a rigid zeolite structure (ZK-5) by cation exchange
•uptake and selectivity in a flexible zeolite structure (Rho)
K
Li
Na
Paul Wright
Functionalised Metal Organic Framework
All solids hydrophobic
Functionalising with amine increases CO2 uptake (by chemoselectivity)
Adding nitro groups increases selectivity for CO2 (by molecular sieving)
J. P. S. Mowat, P. A. Wright et al. Inorg. Chem. 2011, 50, 10844-58
CO2 uptake using mesoporous silica
Mesoporous silica properties:
High surface area
� high functional group
loading
High pore volume (tunable)
� Potentially high CO2 storage
capacity
Humphrey Yiu
CO2 adsorption isotherm
CO2 adsorption capacity of
functionalised mesoporous silica can
be up to 1.4 mmol g-1
(�, functionalised with APTES
aminopropyltriethoxysilane)
Remarkably, higher adsorption of CO2
(2.13 mmol g-1) was recorded in
presence of water.
“N efficiency” ≈ 0.7
surface modification of porous carbon with organic bases
Activated carbon
Impregnation with
polyethyleneimine
Surface
oxid
ation and
subse
quent gra
fting w
ith
polyethyle
neimin
e
Surface activation in
ammoniac plasma
Direct grafting with diamines
Conversion of terminal NH2
groups to stronger bases
(amidines, guanidines)
Eleanor Campbell
Functionalised Carbon Nanotubes for CO2 capture
(CNT frameworks)
Eleanor CampbellEPSRC Feasibility Study: Nanotubes for Carbon Capture
Evaluation
Zero Length Column technique: use of small quantities of materials to
screen for the most promising materials (at 3-7% CO2)
Most promising materials upscaled and tested with PSA and ESA/TSA
Design and construction of bench scale system
(collaboration with Howden)
demonstration of technology feasibility.
1GW plant produces 380 tonnes CO2 per hour.
Require fast cycling time to reduce amount of adsorbent required
Stefano Brandani
Prototype System
Gas-FACTS: Gas - Future Advanced Capture Technology Options Jon Gibbins University of Edinburgh Mathieu Lucquiaud University of Edinburgh Hyungwoong Ahn University of Edinburgh Mohamed Pourkashanian University of Leeds Paul Fennell Imperial College London John Oakey Cranfield University Chris Wilson University of Sheffield Prashant Valluri University of Edinburgh Hannah Chalmers University of Edinburgh Martin Trusler Imperial College London Kevin Hughes University of Leeds Meihong Wang Cranfield University Pericles Pilidis Cranfield University Geoff Maitland Imperial College London Chemical Eng and Amparo Galindo Imperial College London George Jackson Imperial College London Claire Adjiman Imperial College London Nina Thornhill Imperial College London
Poyry, Impact of intermittency: how wind variability could change the shape of the British and Irish electricity markets, Summary report, July 2009, http://www.poyry.com/linked/group/study
Wind and thermal generation in January 2030 with the UK wind patterns from 2000
Amount of time power demand is less than GW shown
Poyry, Impact of intermittency: how wind variability could change the shape of the British and Irish electricity markets, Summary report, July 2009, http://www.poyry.com/linked/group/study
Estimates for 2030
Poyry, Impact of intermittency: how wind variability could change the shape of the British and Irish electricity markets, Summary report, July 2009, http://www.poyry.com/linked/group/study
~ 10 GW of baseload available with 43GW of wind
Amount of time power demand is less than GW shown
Dispatchable (infill/backup) generation capacity
Wind
Estimates for 2030
Nuclear and wind competing for load some of the time
* http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/nuclear/nuclear.aspx
16 GW of UK nuclear capacity*
~ 30 GW of baseload available if no wind
Poyry, Impact of intermittency: how wind variability could change the shape of the British and Irish electricity markets, Summary report, July 2009, http://www.poyry.com/linked/group/study
Estimates for 2030
Wind – 43 GW (+10GW baseload) No wind – extra 20GW baseload 7GW less LF>5% ~10GW less LF<5% (and 43GW less wind)
Load factor distribution for infill power generation
0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Some capacity doing ‘backup’
A lot of ‘infill’ capacity doing serious amounts
of energy generation
Original curves from Poyry, Impact of intermittency: how wind variability could change the shape of the British and Irish electricity markets, Summary report, July 2009, http://www.poyry.com/linked/group/study, but derived numbers are estimates from reading the graph above with assumed baseload from previous slides.
Potential non-baseload CCS capacities?
Load factor Estimates for 2030
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Fuel costs Carbon costs Non-fuel variable costs Fixed costs
ILLUSTRATIVE COST BREAKDOWN FOR UK GENERATION OPTIONS
Based on Redpoint: Decarbonising the GB power sector: evaluating investment pathways, generation patterns and emissions through to 2030, A Report to the Committee on Climate Change, September 2009.
2008 capital costs, assumed £30/tCO2 carbon price, gas price £12.5/MWhth, coal price £6.25/MWhth. 10% interest rate
£/M
Wh
If wind or nuclear is run as fill in power
then costs go up even more than for fossil
If CCGT+CCS is costed at 20% LF then 63% LF electricity at very low
cost is not being used.
Generating Technology and Load Factor
Conclusions for future gas CCS plants Electricity demand is variable and will remain so – but unclear Wind output will always be variable – but no agreed data to properly address the question available in the public domain A lot of electrical energy is required to fill the gap, at a range of load factors – not clear how much could be electricity storage Quite a lot of low-load factor ‘backup’ power is also required 43 GW of wind + ~ 7GW of 20-90% LF + ~10GW of backup (~60GW capacity in total) replaces ~20GW of baseload capacity (estimated using data from the Poyry 2030 scenario) Operating fossil flexibly with and without CCS important Recovering the capital involved at reduced LF is likely to be very uncertain – low capital cost important
~ HRSG
Advanced Post
Combustion Capture
Gas turbine
Air inlet
Exhaust Gas Recycle - EGR
CO2 Transfer & Recycle - CTR
Gas in
Low carbon
electricity out
Decarbonised flue gas out
Decarbonised flue gas out CO2 transfer
Water/steam injection
Gas turbine capture systems
Gas-FACTS: Gas - Future Advanced Capture Technology Options
Cranfield, Edinburgh, Imperial, Leeds & Sheffield Edinburgh: Absorber instrumentation and control,
modelling activities Imperial: Properties of CO2-capture solvents for natural gas; real-time control. Leeds: Experimental measurement and modelling of amine degradation. Sheffield: Gas turbines running component and engine tests, HATS and EGR Cranfield: Membrane prescrubber evaluation and process/technoeconomic modelling.
WP1 Future roles for natural gas CCS plants
WP2 Gas turbine options for
improved CCS system performance
2.1 High humidity operation
2.2 Exhaust gas recycle
2.3 CO2 recycle
WP3 Advanced post combustion solvent capture for future gas power systems
3.1 Gas-specific solvents
3.2 Flexible capture systems
3.3 Advanced testing
WP4 Integration and whole systems performance assessment
WP5 Impact delivery and expert interaction activities
UKCCSRC Pilot-Scale Advanced Capture Technology (PACT) Facilities - Beighton
Amine Post Combustion
Capture Plant (150 KW)
Coal
S
B
C
G
Control Units & System
Integration
Oxygen
Coal
Biomass
AIR
Natural Gas
Gas Turbine APU & Micro-turbine <150Kw
Oxy/air-Solid
Fuels CTF with EGR 250KW
Coal – Biomass
blend Fuels 50KW
Coal – Biomass Air/Oxy
FB Reactor 150KW
Gas Mixer Facilities
Up to 250 KW
O
L
Planned IGCC
Reactor (200 KW)
R
Gas Cleaning
and Shift
System Monitoring
Via Internet
R
E
E
M
A E
E
The Centre is funding commissioning and operating support for UKCCRSC-PACT for next 5 years, costing 810k, and is also offering support worth up to 630k for UKCCSRC members and other academics to undertake new research activities using UKCCSRC-PACT facilities, to complement £2.9M funding from DECC to move and set up equipment provided by RWE Npower.
Planned Gas CCS meetings
Sheffield
24 October - RAPID, EPSRC Gas CCS programme
25 October - Gas-FACTS at PACT offices
Computational Modelling and Optimisation of Carbon Capture Reactors
Prof S. Gu1, Prof K.H. Luo2, Dr L.M. Armstrong2, Mr J.J. Cooke2, Mr N.
Booth3 and Dr M. Dubal3
1. School of Engineering, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, United
Kingdom (Tel: +441234 755277; Fax: +441234 754685; Email address: [email protected])
2. Energy Technology Research Group, School of Engineering Sciences, University of
Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom
3. E.ON New Build and Technology Centre, Ratcliffe, Nottinghamshire.
Proposed Research
Answer the EPSRC call on “Carbon capture and storage for natural gas power stations” by forming a close partnership between Cranfield University, the University of Southampton, and E.ON
• Electricity generation represents approximately a third of the UK’s total CO2
emissions.
• The reduction of CO2 emissions arising from power generation will play an essential part to meet the UK’s ambitious target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050
• The proposed research has a strong focus on industrial needs by integrating with the industrial partner’s existing activities for developing CCS technologies suitable for commercial gas power plants.
• One of the priorities is to develop CCS technologies suitable for natural gas power stations, because such power plants are increasingly used worldwide.
• E.ON UK is generating around 10% of the UK's electricity and the majority of its 9 power stations are gas powered.
• E.ON Group is committed to reducing its CO2
emission by 50% by 2030 (1990 baseline) and has setup a dedicated CCS unit to address the technical challenges.
E.ON's Staudinger coal-fired power plant, in Grosskrotzenburg, Germany.
Proposed Research
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) involves separating the CO2 from emissions so it can be transported and stored away from the atmosphere
• E.ON will provide experimental data forvalidation.
• The EPSRC project will allow us to build a fulltest rig to validate the results and also havepost-doc researchers to join our team to workwith EON for more advanced modelling andlarge scale simulation.
• Activities at Southampton and Cranfield will mainlyinvolve CFD simulations, with the development ofcode and models.
• Small-scale experiments will be performed tovalidate CFD simulations.
• These will involve counter-current gas-liquid flowwithin packing sections.
• The most commercially viable approach to be fitted in natural gas power plants is the post-combustion capture which absorbs CO2 from the flue gas using a chemical reaction - also known as scrubbing.
• E.ON has been actively pursuing this area and will be the focus of this research.
This research specifically targets natural gas power plants, which have a lower concentration of CO2,
approx. 4% compared to 13% from coal-fired plants. Therefore, it is harder to extract, representing the most challenging case for CCS.
Amine Absorption
CO2
Amine
Clean gas
CO2
stored
Heat
Absorber Stripper
Structured Packing
a) Channel scaleb) Close viewc) Details of wall texture
• Corrugated metal sheets
• Structures at various scales
• Large wetted area
• Large liquid-gas interfacial area
• Faster reaction
Raynal & Royon-Lebeaud (2007)
Challenges
CFD modelling of CCS is very challenging – research is needed to develop models
To date, no accurate CFD modelling of the whole reactor has been achieved, mainly due to the followinginherent difficulties:
• Multi-scale problems:
o Micro-scale (liquid flow along packing walls requires microscopic analysis, due to surface texture)o Meso-scale (gas-flow dynamics between packing sheets)o Macro-scale (Full-scale reactor modelling )
Resolving all three scales using a single mesh, even for a lab-scale reactor, is very challenging
• Multi-phase modelling is required to capture the flow behaviours between the gases and the solvent. Thisintroduces problems with tracking the interface.
• Current multi-phase models do not account for absorption and reactions across an interface. Modelsneed to be developed to incorporate this essential element of CCS simulations
At the micro-scale
Improve liquid distributionover plates of differentdesigns and flow controls
αi
Realistic plate distributionsneed to consider the anglesof the channel walls
Volume of Fluid method (VOF) can track the surface of the liquid to determine the surfaceareas achieved for the different flow control measures.
Some results so far
The VOF model was used to determine the effect of surface texture on wetted area within packed columns
• At the micro-scale flow can be approximated by gravity-driven flow downan inclined plane.
• Laminar, two-phase, isothermal simulations were performed• Mass transfer and reactions were ignored in the present results to reducethe complexity of the simulations.
Some results so far
A significant increase in the wetted area was observed with the use of the textured plate
Interfacial Height Rel = 134.44 Ɵ = 60o (left: Smooth plate,
right: Textured plate)Interfacial Velocity Rel = 179.26 Ɵ = 60
o (left: Smooth plate, right: Textured plate)
• Larger wetted areas should increase heat andmass transfer within structured packing
• However, further investigations are required toensure that other effects do not negateimprovements caused by the increased surfacearea
Some results so far
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 50 100 150 200 250
Spe
cific
wet
ted
area
A
w/A
t [-
]
Reynolds number Rel [-]
Smooth plateTextured plate
At the meso-scale
• Determine influences that affect pressure drop
• Different considerations include (Fig: a,b):
• channel openings (αo),• channel heights (hc) and• inclination angles from the horizontal (αi)
• Pressure drop information can be obtained:
• between the large arrays of packingsheets (Fig: c) and
• in smaller periodic RepresentativeElementary Units (REUs) (Fig: d)
• Frictional pressure is the leading contributor tototal pressure drop but other regions such as“elbows” and wall presence must be consideredtoo.
Some results so far
A periodic model was used to determine the pressure drop within a range of channel geometries and inclination angles from the horizontal.
Velocity vectors through the centre of the element inclination angle for a) 60o, b) 50o, c) 45o and d) 40o
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) helps to determine information about:
•Flow distributions•Flow velocities•Pressure drops
Some results so far
Total pressure drop comprises of the loss of pressure due to friction as well as directional change
Pressure drop within REUs represent frictional. Adding apublished correlation for loss due to directional change to thesimulated data gives a good comparison with theexperimental data.
A correlation is needed that predicts the frictional loss according to factors such as channel height,channel opening angle and inclination angle.
Some results so far
Genetic algorithms determine correlations that can predict the pressure drop based on different channel geometries and inclination angles from the horizontal.
Frictional loss coefficient correlation is based on the Ergun-like correlation where pressure losses due to both laminar and turbulent flows are considered:
Reynolds number is based on channel height and effective gas velocity, which relates the superficial gasvelocity to the structured packing porosity and inclination angle:
Genetic algorithm was run using the extensive geometry including different channel heights, opening angles information and inclination angles to determine the coefficients for the constants, C1 and C2.
Some results so far
Maximum error between correlated data and simulated data from this work and the literature was 12.5%, better than any previous attempts at 18-20%
Some results so far
Correlation predicts the data well for a) inclination angles, b-d) channel heights and opening angles
Some results so far
Surface plots suggest optimal geometries with minimised pressure drops
Some results so far
Simulation of the optimal geometry is then carried out and agrees well with the simulated data
(N.B. Geometry was not previously simulated so the data was not used in original data set)
Next step
• Incorporate mass exchange between the gas and liquid in a wetted wallcolumn
• Continue CFD simulations and optimisation techniques at the micro-scaleto improve surface area of liquid
• Consider mass exchange on different micro-scale plates• Inclusion of reaction kinetics in order to simulate chemically enhancedabsorption
• Carry out meso-scale simulations with the presence of flow control toimprove gas circulation between the sheets
• Porous media models at macro-scale simulation• Look into alternative models which reduce the complexity of thesimulations, whilst maintaining accuracy
• Build test rig for absorption and desorption processes• Modelling and optimization of pilot plants
Thank you
Questions?