The UKCCSRC is supported by the

Engineering and Physical Sciences

Research Council as part of the

Research Councils UK Energy

Programme

Summary of a workshop series on

Carbon Capture and Storage from UK Industries Prepared by Leigh Murray, Tamaryn Napp, Paul Fennell and Jon Gibbins, V1.0, 19 March 2013

A series of four workshops on CCS from UK Industries were held in late 2012:

Friday 19th October, Sheffield - Iron and Steel

Monday 22nd October, London - Cement

Monday 5th November, Sheffield - Glass and other large industrial heat users

Wednesday 7th November 2012, Edinburgh - Chemicals and Refineries

Thursday 13th December, IMechE, London - Clusters

Presentations and meeting reports from these workshops can be found on http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/october-december-2012-ccs-industry-workshops

Some of the principal results are summarised in this report, covering the following areas:

DISCLAIMER – THIS REPORT AIMS TO GIVE A REPRESENTATIVE ACCOUNT OF DISCUSSIONS AT A SERIES OF WORKSHOPS BUT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS THE CONSIDERED VIEWS OF THE AUTHORS OR OF ANY OF THE OTHER ORGANISATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED.

READERS ARE ADVISED TO RELY ENTIRELY ON THEIR PERSONAL DISCRETION AND JUDGEMENT WITH RESPECT TO ANY AND ALL OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED.

1

1. Scope for Industry CCS linked to UK CO2 Transport and StorageClusters

1.1 Overview of the potential for UK CO2 Transport and Storage Clusters

1.2 Examples of possible clusters based on UK CCS Commercialisation Competition entries

1.3 Experience of Public Perception in CO2 transport planning

1.4 Summary - Scope for Industry CCS linked to UK Clusters

2. CO2 Capture Discussions

2.1 Iron and Steel

2.2 Cement

2.3 Glass

2.4 Chemical and Refineries

3. Summary: Overview of CO2 Capture from UK Industry Sources

2

3

10

26

10

2

7

9

13

17

20

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

Figure 1.1b Overview of UK CO2 emission sources, storage sites and 2050 cluster scenario from the Scottish-based ‘Central North Sea – CO2 Storage Hub’ Report

(http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/features/cns/unique-opportunity.html )

In http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/system/files/uploads/NationalGrid.pdf from UKCCSRC Iron & Steel Workshop, Friday 19th October, Sheffield , http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/meetings-events/ccs-industry-workshops/iron-steel-workshop

Figure 1.1a Overview of UK CO2 emission sources from IEAGHG data reported by National Grid

1. Scope for Industry CCS linked to UK CO2 Transport and Storage Clusters1.1 Overview of the potential for UK CO2 Transport and Storage Clusters

CO2 capture from industry sources is expected to combine with pre-existing pipeline transport and storage systems put in place for power CCS projects. Current UK emission sources have conceptually been grouped into five clusters (Figure 1.1a), although it must be noted that no firm cluster gathering pipeline plans are in place and that emission patterns may change in the future.

UK CO2 storage prospects and one proposed pipeline system scenario are shown in Figure 1.1b.

2

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

1.2 Examples of possible clusters based on UK CCS Commercialisation Competition entries

2020 scenario

(2020 - Quoted description): In the 2012 DECC Competition, the Central North Sea is an integral part of projects spanning the CCS fuel and capture range: post-combustion capture on gas (Peterhead), pre-combustion capture on gasification of coal (Captain Clean Energy Project) and CO2 - EOR (Don Valley). These form the foundations of a durable and highly scalable cluster, which can service all UK needs and has European impact.

These power plants can be connected into a pipeline network which largely exists. Current industrial CO2 emissions can be added in to this network at an early date. An offshore “A to B” pipeline starts to develop CO2 - EOR.

Total storage 5 - 10Mt CO2/year

1.2.1 Scotland: 2020 cluster scenario from the ‘Central North Sea – CO2 Storage Hub’ Report (http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/features/cns/unique-opportunity.html )

UKCCSRC Note – There is no reason to believe that current plans for the UK Commercialisation Competition entries for the Captain Clean Energy and Peterhead projects involve shared pipeline and storage infrastructure, due to DECC bidding rules, although this does appear to be technically feasible

Figure 1.2.1a Scotland: 2020 cluster scenario from the ‘Central North Sea – CO2 Storage

Hub’ Report

(2030 - Quoted description): New gas or coal plants will have been developed on existing brownfield sites at Cockenzie and Longannet, with minimal marginal cost to connect into the existing under-used pipeline capacity. Large carbon-intensive industries also have easy connection (Grangemouth Refinery, Mossmorran Ethylene, Dunbar Cement). A CO2 shipping hub is developed at Peterhead deepwater port, enabling 20,000 tonne and larger tankers to import CO2 from Rotterdam, Teesside, the Forth cluster, and decentralised parts of the UK.

2030 scenario

Figure 1.2.1b Scotland: 2030 cluster scenario from the ‘Central North Sea – CO2 Storage Hub’ Report

These are attracted by 15 to 20 CO2 - EOR developments in the UK and multi-user aquifer storage, proven and guaranteed to commercial quality by more than 10 years of injection experience. Development of the existing tanker terminal at Finnart enables flexible shipping import of CO2 from the UK west coast to help many stranded assets; a short link pipe, already planned, expands links into the Forth Cluster. Cross-border transport develops Norwegian CO2-EOR and aquifers.

Total storage 100 Mt CO2/year.

3

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

1.2.2 Teeside: CO2 sources in the North East (Mark Lewis, NEPIC, ‘The Teesside Cluster and Industry CCS Prospects’, http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/system/files/uploads/CCS%20Industrial%20Presentation%20Dec%2012%20NEPIC.pdf)

Reported cluster characteristics:

•Up to 26 Mt CO2

could be technically captured each year from 37 industrial and power sector emitters situated close to each other in the Tees Valley.

•This could reduceannual CO2 emissions from the North East by 71%.

•Sources are inclose proximity (see map).

Figure 1.2.2a Teeside: CO2 sources in the North East (Mark Lewis, NEPIC, ‘The Teesside Cluster and Industry CCS Prospects’,

http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/system/files/uploads/CCS%20Industrial%20Presentation%20Dec%2012%20NEPIC.pdf)

Reported costs: CCS marginal abatement cost curve for selected emitters in Teesside. Each bar corresponds to an individual emitter connected to a common transport and storage network.

Figure 1.2.2b Teeside: Cluster expansion scenarios (Mark Lewis, NEPIC, ‘The Teesside Cluster and Industry CCS Prospects’,

http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/system/files/uploads/CCS%20Industrial%20Presentation%20Dec%2012%20NEPIC.pdf)

4

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

Anchor Capacity 5 Mt CO2/year

5 km “One Large Source”

Medium Capacity 22 Mt CO2/year

22 km “All Large Sources”

Large Capacity 26 Mt CO2/year

37 km “All Large and Medium Sources”

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Mt

CO2

capt

ured

/yea

r

Year

Large

Medium

Anchor

Reported expansion potential:

A stakeholder survey reveals that several large and medium sources expect they could connect to a CCS network if one was available.

Nearly half of regional businesses interviewed believe that a CCS network at Tees Valley would be financially viable in the next 5-10 years.

Modelled uptake scenario

Figure 1.2.2c Teeside: Cluster expansion scenarios - capacity (Mark Lewis, NEPIC, ‘The Teesside Cluster and Industry CCS Prospects’,

http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/system/files/uploads/CCS%20Industrial%20Presentation%20Dec%2012%20NEPIC.pdf)

See overleaf for corresponding cluster pipeline plan

Figure 1.2.2d Teeside: Cluster expansion scenarios - network (Mark Lewis, NEPIC, ‘The Teesside Cluster and Industry CCS Prospects’,

http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/system/files/uploads/CCS%20Industrial%20Presentation%20Dec%2012%20NEPIC.pdf)

5

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

1.2.3 Yorkshire and the Humber: Pipeline scenarios Jason Stoyel, ‘The Case for a CCS Cluster in Yorkshire and the Humber’, http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/system/files/uploads/CO2sense.pdf, see also www.co2sense.co.uk

Note: at the time of the workshop only the Drax ‘White Rose’ project remained in the UK CCS Commercialisation Competition.

Figure 1.2.3a Yorkshire and the Humber: Pipeline scenarios Jason Stoyel, ‘The Case for a CCS Cluster in Yorkshire and the Humber’,

http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/system/files/uploads/CO2sense.pdf, see also www.co2sense.co.uk

Figure 1.2.3b Yorkshire and the Humber: Estimated transport cost reductions from clustering Based on 40MtCO2/yr pipeline spine, up to 100km offshore

Jason Stoyel, ‘The Case for a CCS Cluster in Yorkshire and the Humber’, http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/system/files/uploads/CO2sense.pdf, see also www.co2sense.co.uk

Reported characteristics for Yorkshire and Humber cluster: • 60Mt of CO2 emissions from single point sources • Range of sectors – not just fossil fuel power generation • Located in a relatively small geographic area • Adjacent coastline to southern North Sea gas fields • Considerable industry interest • Strong local political, business and public support • Establishment of cost effective infrastructure would give a world lead for the region and

secure strategically important energy intensive industries for the long term

6

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

Box 1.3a Issues of concern identified in public engagement work for Yorkshire CO2 pipeline Disruption Disruption during construction Length of period of disruption for residents Environmental and visual impacts Safety Previous safety records and CO2 pipeline ‘first of a kind’ Human error and measures to reduce risk of third party interference Leaks: prevention, detection and remediation Consequences of high pressure operation Environmental impacts of leaks Evacuation plans in the event of an incident Trust Trust in the companies involved Trust in those who control each stage of the processes Safety regulations Storage Reliability of basing predictions on models Environmental performance and long term repercussions Long term management of storage sites Other Issues Impact on tourism Impact on historical sites Health concerns Proximity of pipeline CCS as climate change mitigation Cost of pipeline

1.3 Experience of Public Perception in CO2 transport planning From presentation by Mark Lorch, University of Hull, reported in Russell Cooper, National Grid: ‘Work on CO2 transport and public acceptance, http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/system/files/uploads/Public%20Perception%20Dec%202012%20v2.pdf

7

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

Box 1.3b EU Thematic Report – Knowledge sharing in Public Engagement , May 2012 (www.ccsnetwork.eu), reported in Russell Cooper, National Grid: ‘Work on CO2 transport and public acceptance, http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/system/files/uploads/Public%20Perception%20Dec%202012%20v2.pdf )

The process for communicating is more important than content. Dialogue and listening is far more important than focusing on technicalities and process.

Projects have been criticised for fancy advertisement campaigns and glossy brochures – it is far more important to engage face to face with the local public.

The project must identify where common interests can be found and engage with stakeholders.

A project must be transparent and honest. Site visits to the power plant and capture unit are recommended.

Very carefully consider the language used. Some scientific or technical words can be very unhelpful.

It can be worth giving universities and academics access to project data. Independent findings provide impartial credibility, but use communications experts to ‘translate’ the science into something that can be easily understood.

Engineers should be given guidance if they are conducting public engagement actions, as they often refer to processes which can be too complicated for the public.

Spend time training the project staff so that they have credibility (i.e. they are more than just a P.R. person) but can still speak in laymen’s terms.

Prepare a common language and shared messaging for the entire team.

Public figures can be a helpful sponsor for a CCS project, particularly to ‘open doors’. However they will not be considered as being ‘independent’ for long, and will eventually be labelled as being ‘pro-CCS’.

The project must have government support.

Ensure that public engagement is ‘led’ by the project manager, and is a critical part of the management structure from the very beginning.

8

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

1.4 Summary - Scope for Industry CCS linked to UK Clusters

1.4.1 Overview of the potential for UK CO2 Transport and Storage Clusters Given current power plant and industrial manufacturing plant locations in the UK there is significant potential for clustering of multiple CCS projects based on initial power plant ‘anchor’ projects.

Based on UK CCS Commercialisation Competition entries at the time of the meeting there are immediate possibilities for capture clusters in three areas: Scotland, Teeside and Yorkshire/Humber. Other potential areas have also been identified, including Thames and Liverpool Bay. There is good scope for synergy between clusters through interconnection and common storage sites. Storage clusters are, to some extent, independent from capture clusters.

No major new industry emission sources are envisaged; CCS is expected to be a retrofitted technology in the UK. But there are obvious uncertainties as to the size, fuel and location for future fossil power plants, including potential ‘anchor’ projects. It is also unclear to what UK industry will change; the closure of Alcan’s manufacturing facility at Lynemouth being an example.

1.4.2. Examples of possible clusters based on UK CCS Commercialisation Competition entries

1.4.2.1 Scotland Cluster scenarios at the time of the workshop were based on an initial cluster combining two UK CCS Commercialisation Competition projects on the Firth of Forth (Captain Clean Energy Project) and at Peterhead, largely using existing pipelines. Note, however, that there is no reason to believe that current plans for the UK Commercialisation Competition entries for the Captain Clean Energy and Peterhead projects involve shared pipeline and storage infrastructure, due to DECC bidding rules, although this does appear to be technically feasible.

Subsequent expansion scenarios include new power plants on the Longannet and Cockenzie sites and also refinery capture at Grangemouth and Mossmoran and from a cement plant at Dunbar.

1.4.2.2 Teeside It was reported that Up to 26 Mt CO2 could be technically captured each year from 37 industrial and power sector emitters situated close to each other in the Tees Valley. The bulk of these could be from seven large sites with abatement costs of less than £50/tCO2. Detailed pipeline network scenarios were presented.

1.4.2.3 Yorkshire and the Humber This cluster was reported to contain up to 60Mt of CO2 emissions from single point sources, although some of this is from existing coal fired power plants that may have limited operating lives. Pipeline scenarios were presented based on the Don Valley project at Hatfield as an anchor project, although at the time of the workshop only the Drax ‘White Rose’ project remained in the UK CCS Commercialisation Competition (and details of this project were not in the public domain due to confidentiality rules).

1.4.3 Experience of Public Perception in CO2 transport planning Public acceptance of CCS projects has been a major issue in continental Europe. The UK has some fundamental differences in that storage and much of the transport will be offshore. Nonetheless, public engagement for onshore pipeline construction and re-use requires careful attention and some experience from work in Yorkshire is available in the public domain.

9

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

2. CO2 Capture Discussions

2.1 Iron and Steel

2.1.1 Summary of Industry Presentations at Iron and Steel Meeting

Tata Steel Group In the UK Tata Steel has 3 steelmaking facilities (Scunthorpe, Port Talbot, and Rotherham) with 11 million tonnes per annum crude steel capacity. There are 16 manufacturing locations and 33 distribution centres. Roughly two tonnes of CO2 are produced per tonne of steel when operating at full capacity. The £60m "BOS plant recovery" scheme at Port Talbot uses waste gases from steelmaking, which were formerly burnt off, to produce energy for the site, resulting in nearly 300 kt/yr of CO2 savings (http://www.iom3.org/events/corus-port-talbot-plant-visit-lecture-bos-plant-gas-recovery-scheme )

Tata is a leading partner in the European programme - Ultra-low CO2 steelmaking (ULCOS). The ULCOS concept is based on a Top Gas Recycle Blast Furnace (TGRBF). The general principle is to have a nitrogen-free / full-oxygen Blast Furnace with CO2 removal from the top gas to leave just CO and H2 with very little nitrogen. The CO and H2 are recycled to the BF. An example was in the NER300 competition for demonstration at the Arcelor-Mittal Florange plant

The HISARNA pilot plant at Ijmuiden, NL looks at the direct use of coal and ore (i.e. no coking and agglomeration) to save 20% CO2 emissions without CCS and also achieve lower CAPEX and OPEX. It is also well suited for CO2 storage (no CO2 scrubbing stage needed) and would achieve 80 % reduction with CCS and substantial reduction of other emissions. The use of biomass is also possible.

Sahaviraya Steel (SSI) SSI was established in 1990 and is the largest sheet steel producer in South East Asia. At SSI’s Teeside facility the average amount of iron produced per year is around 3 million tonnes. It is not as modern as other integrated steel plants in the UK – but it costs around 6 billion pounds to build a new plant. The Teeside facility generates about two tonnes of CO2 per tonne of slab. Lower CO2 emissions can be achieved through putting in the latest technology – e.g. in the coke ovens, in the pellet plants, sinter plants, blast furnace, steel plant.

Units on the site are dispersed - the blast furnace is 5km away from the steel plant. The Redcar Blast Furnace, a single >10,000 tonnes/days unit, is the second largest in Europe after Salzgitter. A blast furnace operates for 353 days a year and can be run for 15 years. Investments of £ 57M are being spent on implementing PCI (powder coal injection) – as well as improving economics this changes the heating value of the blast furnace gas.

10

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

Progressive Energy Progressive Energy is mainly looking at pre-combustion capture technologies for coal gasification of coal with possible clustering of other CCS users in Teeside and/or uses for hydrogen. The effects of impurities in the CO2 from industry applications are of concern for transport and storage.

National Grid (NG) National Grid is studying CO2 transport networks to achieve carbon abatement targets, deliver lower unit costs and reduce local disruption during construction. Pipelines pass through many communities – there is public anxiety, so getting public acceptance is vital. NG is trying to identify best storage sites across the Central and Southern North Sea and has carried out an appraisal drilling of an aquifer – 26 km long. NG is also participating in the Cooltrans (CO2 Liquid TRANSportation) project , running from January 2011 to December 2013 to study the thermodynamic characteristics of dense phase CO2, quantified risk assessment, fracture control, design studies and environmental and social impact studies. Over 100 full scale experiments on CO2 release are being conducted.

Air Liquide (AL) AL is a world leader in gases for industry, health and the environment. AL is a partner in the ULCOS project, contributing the PSA (pressure swing absorber) for removing CO2. The PSA concept for CO/ CO2 separation associated with Top Gas Recycle Blast Furnace has been validated on AL’s Mefos pilot plant in Sweden (15,000 tonnes hot metal per year). A filtration pilot plant at Florange has been successfully operated.

AL is ready to offer a CO2 capture system (PSA + CO2 processing unit -CPU) with a capacity of >1 million tonnes of CO2 per year; the next step is to demonstrate Top Gas Recycle Blast Furnace at commercial scale. An new configuration for an Air Separation Unit (ASU) dedicated to Blast Furnace applications (~95% purity oxygen) could reduce power consumption by almost a factor of 2 compared to a high pressure, high purity oxygen for a basic oxygen furnace (BOF).

11

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

2.1.2 Summary of CO2 capture issues for Iron and Steel Industry

It probable that CO2 capture would be retrofitted to existing plant, new build is not considered likely with the possible exception of a novel steelmaking technique (e.g. Hisarna) that might be integrated with an existing plant as an upgrade.

This would imply that there would be site-specific factors in the technology choice, with the limited market meaning that there would be pressure to adopt mostly existing technology. The operating environment will, however, differ significantly from power plant applications. Costs must be of course be “sustainable” .

Options for the main sources for CO2 emissions in steel works operation are considered below.

Blast furnace Blast furnace emissions could be captured on the unit as in the ULCOS system or the blast furnace top gas (BFTG) could be fed to a power station with CCS. Integration issues that affect either option include: • Pressures in the top gas recycle loop: top gas in the blast furnace varies from 2 to

3.5 bar • Flow transients – sudden surges in oxygen and extremely high flows may occur

with little notice (e.g. Blast Furnace Slips) • Composition transients (channelling) + O2 breakthrough • Top gas inhomogeneities across the bed • Effect s of leaks and faults • Species: Hg, Zn, As, C2+, S Sinter plant, Stoves CO2 from combustion in the sinter plant and stoves might be captured by variations of post-combustion capture technologies. Coke ovens Combustion products could be treated with post-combustion capture, Coke oven gas could be sent to a power plant with CO2 capture. Onsite power stations It is assumed that CO2 capture would only be undertaken with Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) units (added as an upgrade where necessary) and possibly employing ‘over the fence’ arrangements. Gas storage of 4-8 hours of capacity in gas holders might assist with operational issues. Low gas heating value could be a problem and supplementary fuel might be required. Pre-combustion capture following a shift might be an option for blast furnace top gas going to a power station. Post-combustion capture from a CCGT power station on a steel plant would get some advantage from potentially higher CO2 contents in the exhaust than for natural gas firing, but impurities and differing combustion properties would be an issue. Flue gas or CO2 recycle (FGR) for the gas turbine (yet to be developed) might be an advantage, possibly with the addition of oxygen enrichment in the burner (since O2 is available on site).

12

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

2.2 Cement

2.2.1 Summary of Presentations at Cement Meeting

Dr Paul Fennell, Energy Engineering group, Imperial College London Imperial Activities in cement/CCS Dr Fennell explained that although the UKCCSRC understands the importance of applying CCS to industries apart from power generation, the manner in which it is funded does not allow for funding of research into this.

Dr Fennell then presented the results of some of his ongoing work at Imperial College about the calcium looping process (CaL) after briefly explaining the technology. The suitability of spent calcium oxide from CaL for cement production is being investigated using a lab-scale batch fluidised bed system to produce the ‘spent’ CaO sorbent. Other studies include evaluating the rate of concrete carbonation, something that will hopefully influence future life cycle assessments of concrete and cement.

Olaf Stallmann, Programme Manager for the Regenerative Calcium Cycle (RCC), ALSTOM Regenerative Calcium Cycle Mr Stallmann gave an overview of ALSTOM in general and his department in particular. ALSTOM began their CCS programme in 2008. ALSTOM are committing serious resources to RCC research and development because of its lower efficiency penalty than amine technology. (RCC is another name for the calcium looping process.) ALSTOM currently believes that, for power applications, the Advanced Amine Process (AAP) has a 25% efficiency penalty, which could be reduced to 12%, whereas RCC has a current efficiency penalty of 12% and could reach 1% in the future. ALSTOM have a 1MWth RCC pilot at TU Darmstadt and are looking to install another in Norway soon. Phillip Cozens, Progressive Energy Mr Cozens explained that Progressive Energy is developing a CCS anchor project and CCS cluster on Teesside, UK. There are power stations, steel mills, refineries and chemical plants to be connected to the cluster on Teesside but no cement plants. Progressive Energy specialises in measuring the impurities in CO2 streams for sequestration and is involved in R&D with the National Physical Laboratory. CO2 streams must be of sufficient quality to comply with the London Convention and OSPAR. Industrial CO2 streams tend to contain more impurities than those originating from power generation. Significant impurities may include As, Hg, Cl, Be, NH3.

Concentrating on the cement sector, Mr Cozens mentioned that the wide range of waste-derived fuels can cause significant contamination of cement plant-derived CO2 streams. Furthermore, UK cement plants are generally located far from potential cluster regions. At £500,000/km of underground pipeline, transport of cement plant-derived CO2 is one of the major issues surrounding implementation of cement plant CCS. The calcination emissions from cement manufacture are of good purity, and so these may be the lowest hanging fruit.

13

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

Dr Jia Li, Lecturer in Low Carbon Energy, University of Exeter Simulation of Carbon Capture in Chinese Cement Plants Dr Li has been studying the possibility of developing a ‘CCS-ready’ hub in the Pearl River (Hong Kong/Guangzhou) region of China, where there is a storage site 130km offshore. She has developed a simulation model and investigated the cost of applying CCS to a new 2Mt/yr cement plant to be built in this region using amine capture technology. She explained that in developing countries much less emphasis is placed on new capture technologies such as calcium looping. The cost of CO2 avoided, at a 14% discount rate, was 68USD (2010)/t CO2. Economic analysis showed that it is desirable to ensure cement plants are ‘capture-ready’, but what this means in practice for plant design is relatively unknown. Hyungwoong Ahn, Institute of Materials and Processes, University of Edinburgh Process Integration of a Ca-Looping Process with a Cement Plant for Carbon Capture Dr Ahn explained the simulation of a CaL system on a cement plant that has been developed by him and his group. By modelling the temperature and CO2 concentration within the cement plant, he was able to identify the gas coming from the 3rdprecalciner stage as the most appropriate for diversion to the adjoining CaL plant. Good process integration of the CaL plant with the cement plant is necessary to realise the good process efficiency. The model included air leaks in the cement plant. Adina Popa, CCS Business Sector Leader, Mott MacDonald Ltd DrPopa highlighted the importance of understanding the effect of CCS implementation on engineering construction contractors, supply chains, existing infrastructure and other systems. She then described some of the work that Mott MacDonald has undertaken for third parties, including a reports on CCS in the cement industry for IEA and UNIDO. They are involved in consulting both companies and government departments. Peter Sullivan, Commerical Manager for National Grid Carbon National Grid began involvement in CCS in 2007. They are investigating how to make carbon transport and storage more affordable, as well as conducting large-scale research into the effect of impurities in dense phase pipelines. This includes destructive testing of the pipelines. Jonas Helseth, Bellona Mr Helseth gave a brief description of the activities of Bellona within the U Technology Platform for CCS, the Zero Emissions Platform (ZEP). ZEP is now looking to involve other industries as well as power generation, and aims to produce a report to the IEA and the Clean Energy Ministerial by February, outlining the challenges and opportunities for deploying CCS in other industries in Europe. Input to this work, with a potentially high policy impact, is welcomed. DwightDemorais, Mineral Products Association The MPA represents 100% of UK cement production and works together with Cembureau to address cement sustainability issues, as well as attending meetings such as this one in order to pass information to his members. Helmut Hoppe, DMZ and ECCRA Both DMZ and ECCRA are looking at cement-CCS projects. The ECCRA, an association of cement producers, industry organisations and equipment suppliers, has decided to concentrate on oxyfuel combustion in cement plants following their theoretical studies. They will therefore be building an oxyfuel pilot plant over the next couple of years. The ECCRA is still involved in the Norcem project and as such will continue to work on post-combustion capture, but will not provide any funding for the project.

14

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

2.2.2 Summary of CO2 capture issues for Cement Industry Amine Capture It was pointed out that a cement plant, being well heat-integrated already, does not have much low-grade heat to spare for the regeneration of the amine sorbent. (In a power plant, the low-grade heat is not free either, as it would be otherwise used in the low pressure turbine.) Thus, another source of low-grade heat is required. A CHP plant could provide significant amounts of both electricity and low-grade heat, making the cement plant self-sufficient in both, but at an efficiency cost. Policy mechanisms may be required to effect their construction. Oxyfuel cement The baseline efficiency of oxyfuel is of concern. De-bottlenecking and reducing thermal ballast are two possible actions. Reducing the thermal ballast will affect conditions within the kiln, so an optimal CO2 recycle must be found. The existence of air leaks within current cement plants may make retrofitting with oxyfuel difficult. The cement from an oxyfuel plant may have different properties; this should be investigated. Calcium Looping (CaL) The quality of cement made with used sorbent is of prime importance, and it is unlikely that cement standards could be relaxed to accommodate any currently out-of-spec properties of CaL cement. Even if standards could be relaxed, customer acceptance of the cement is not assured. On the other hand, CaL cement may be of greater quality – preliminary experiments attest to this. Ca Looping is an extremely promising technology. The integration of the CaL process within the cement plant is also of concern, and the limits to cycling of CaO within CaL must be better understood. Transport and storage Because of the many impurities expected to be present in CO2 from cement plants as well as variability in the stream’s composition, a minimum purity must be defined by the pipeline owner/operator. The rapid on-line measurement of these impurities is critical to prevent off-spec gas entering the pipeline. The mixing of streams from different sources brings with it the need for legislation over liabilities to pipeline damage, etc. There was a debate about the requirement or not of buffering capacity. Some participants argued that this is not necessary, as there is no real limit to the rate at which CO2 can be pumped into an aquifer. Others argued that buffering is necessary due to the limitations of wellheads. Over-arching issues & environmental The issue of new waste water streams was brought to the workshop’s attention. Large amounts of water are required by some of the capture technologies, and this water must be sourced and disposed of sustainably. Although amine salts are already disposed of by specialist companies, vastly larger quantities will be produced in the future. This may be a problem. Other issues touched upon in this section were amine slip, process changes (e.g. wet process to dry), other changes to the cement plant, site access for construction and operation of the new capture plants on-site, and the logistics of moving large amounts of bulk/raw materials for the processes involved.

Pressure-swing absorption (PSA), vacuum pressure swing absorption (VPSA), temperature swing absorption (TSA), advanced sorbents and membranes. The major issues raised here were about contamination of the sorbents and membranes by trace and minor species as well as particulates.

15

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

Other/general points There is policy in place for CCS in the power industry. There needs to be a similar policy applied to other industries.

In the future, cement plants may be located to enable connection of the cement plant to a CO2 cluster as well as to be close to limestone deposits.

DECC should be informed of the best timing, funding and qualities of demonstration competitions.

A ‘capture-ready’ specification for industries, as is currently available for power plants, may be useful for investors wishing to ensure that their plant will meet future legislation. This could be developed by industry or by government, as was the case for power plants. Would an industrial CCS demonstration be useful? It was agreed that several pilot-scale plants, spread across capture technologies and industrial sectors, offers a great benefit than one commercial-scale demonstration capture plant. In the cement industry, a 1t/d demonstration was estimated to cost roughly £4-5m, and 1t/h to cost £10m.However, the costs of capture in industrial sectors are quite variable, partly due to the lack of pilot-scale tests, something that these pilots could address.

It was pointed out that prescribing a size and cost of plant may not be the most helpful path, and a qualitative competition was suggested in which the potential to scale up and value for money are prioritised. Co-funding from industry may be difficult to obtain in the current policy environment because there’s no pressure on industries to invest and develop CCS. If co-funding is desirable DECC and BIS must be clear that they will force industries to demonstrate CCS soon, or provide real incentives for demonstrators. Carbon capture could easily double the costs of cement manufacture, despite the low cost per tonne CO2 captured. This must be addressed if cement CCS is to be implemented.

16

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

2.3 Glass

2.3.1 Summary of Presentations at Glass Meeting

Large glass manufacturing sites in the UK At present in the UK there are 1 fibre, 12 container (bottles) and 5 flat (windows) glass manufacturing sites. Glass melting is a very energy-intensive process. The CO2 mainly comes from the combustion and some of the raw materials (added as carbonates) in the glass. Last year in the UK two million tonnes of direct CO2 emissions (coming out of the chimneys) were emitted from the glass industry. Fuel usage Indirect emissions also come from electricity generation. Energy usage at UK glass plants is approximately 80% from fossil fuels; 20% from electricity, but varies with location and design. Gas is not always used; oil can be used as well, whichever is cheaper. Oil is a better fuel for melting glass because of its luminosity. The ash content of any fuel that is used has to be low enough that it doesn’t contaminate the product or affect the refractory. Biomass or biogas is also a viable material for fuel if it burns and is cheap. Furnace Most flat glass furnaces are regenerative (in order to achieve the high flame temperatures required). Firing occurs every 20 minutes one way and then 20 minutes the other way. The gas being emitted is continuous coming out of the chimney 365 days a year. They can run for 15 years continuously. Flue gas composition The flue gas composition from the glass industry may be different to that from a power plant. From the glass industry, the pollutants in the flue gas include:

Dust (particulate): Unabated 80-140 mg/m3 - Abated 1-20 mg/m3 Sulphur oxides (as SO2) (Gas fired) 300–800 mg/m3 Chlorine (as HCl) 5–30 mg/m3 Fluorine (as HF) 1–5 mg/m3 Nitrogen oxides (as NO2) 500–2000 mg/m3 Impurities in CO2 The halides, particularly HF, will attract any dissolved water in the CO2 and will form hydrofluoric acid – a major corrosion (and possibly maintenance safety) problem.

SOx and NOx will impact on the geological storage formations. Water is a problem as it could form hydrates in the pipes and also promotes carbonic acid corrosion above certain levels. Hydrocarbon industry experience suggests that the concentration of oxygen in the CO2 has to be low (<10ppmv) to prevent bacterial growth in the storage sites.

Concerns about health – if there was a release and H2S is emitted into the atmosphere – this could be more toxic than the CO2.

H2 (and other permanent gases) in the CO2 will change CO2’s thermodynamic properties, which could result in two-phase flow in pumps, pipes etc. under unexpected (for pure CO2) conditions. Carbon steel is much more affordable than stainless steel for pipes, so there is a need to look at corrosion, which implies rigorous control on water content.

Selenium is a common impurity from glass furnaces and is very volatile so difficult to get down to low levels, but Se is not expected to be a major problem impurity.

17

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

NOx Each large glass furnace produces up to 100,000 tonnes per year. The waste gases contain heavy metals and particulate matter. A lot of NOx is produced compared to may other industries because it is such a high temperature process. The Industrial Emissions Directive requires that the concentration emissions levels of NOx have to drop to 500-800 ppm by 2016.

The starting concentration of NOx depends very much on the firing setup. A highly oxidising, very hot gas-fired furnace will produce 4000 mg of NOx for the very clear glass products. An oil-fired flame setup (purposefully to reduce NOx emissions) will produce less than 2000mg of NOx. An SCR (selective catalytic reduction) it is an expensive process, but it does allow one to be flexible with the furnace

Temperature The temperature of the gases going up in the chimney varies from less than 480 to 520oC, but on a brand new furnace with very efficient regenerators the temperature will be less because more heat will be recovered. Waste heat recovery systems on the flue gases have been considered. But waste heat boilers, turbines, etc cost a lot of money and the payback is not quick enough. They would need government investment. The regenerators are efficient at recovering the heat that leaves the furnace, in the sense that the temperature of the gases coming out the furnace are 1600oC, not 500oC. An elevated temperature is required for the flue gas to give plume buoyancy, it also provides some of the pressure drop in the pollution control equipment through the chimney draught. Particulate removal In the glass industry the particulate emissions are different to other industries, especially sodium sulphate – this is the bulk of the particulate matter composition (~60%). The average size of dust particulate is ~1 micron (µm). Some companies use electrostatic precipitators for abatement (collect dust and scrubber reaction products), but some use ceramic (glass fibre) bag filters which use lower temperatures. Glass fibre filters with NOx reduction catalysts have also been employed outside the UK. Observations on manufacturers At O-I, the world’s largest container manufacturer, six million tonnes of direct CO2 emissions are produced globally. In the UK, one plant in Alloa produces ~150,000 CO2 tonnes p.a. and one plant in Harlow produces ~65,000 tonnes CO2 p.a. O-I has embarked on a CO2 reduction program – primarily focussed on production efficiency, involving using less glass to make bottles, light-weight design optimisation. They use recycled material – it takes less energy to melt recycled glass, and requires less carbonate usage (limestone, soda ash & dolomite). Most of O-I’s manufacturing facilities have relatively small CO2 outputs. Average emission is 80-100,000 tonnes p.a.

Natural gas is the predominant fuel used, but can use HFO depending on economics. Electric melting is not economically competitive/viable.

Fuel price and sensitivity There is no certainty with respect to future energy prices. Every large company has a strategy towards buying fuel. A company’s sensitivity to fuel prices depends on where they source their basic inputs from. Specialist glass products tend to be shipped far afield, but commodity window glass is not transported very far. Some glass products are transported long distances after primary use e.g. whisky bottles are filled within 30 miles of their point of manufacture, but are then shipped to every part of the world.

18

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

Figure 2.3.1a Industrial gas pipelines in Northern Europe (Air Liquide)

Air Liquide’s H2 infrastructure

• There has been a 900 km H2 pipeline network running from Rotterdam to Dunkirk for the past 40 years.

• The UK gas network was up to 1969 a partially hydrogen-based system (using town gas, up to ~50% H2).

• Refuelling cars in the UK with H2 requires a national body and a financial case for investment.

• Most of H2 use in the world goes towards producing diesel (also ammonia).

2.3.2 Options to capture CO2 from glass manufacturing

1. Fire the furnace with decarbonised fuel gas (e.g. use hydrogen-rich gas from a pre-combustion CCS facility) instead of natural gas. Could import the H2 gas from a syngas plant with shift and capture to reduce the CO2 footprint. But burning a H2 rich fuel will give a water-rich offgas. A H2/CO mixture is used in South Africa, produced at Sasol. It is considered to the least favoured fuel in the glass-making world.

2. Use post-combustion capture of CO2 from furnace flue gases with a conventional firing process.

3. Oxy-firing (possibly partial enrichment in conjunction with post-combustion capture, to concentrate the CO2). Modern furnaces tend to use some oxygen enrichment instead of being simple air-fired. (e.g. Air Liquide has produced an oxy-combustion burner, which can significant reducing NOx emissions.)

It is also noted that electric melting using low carbon electricity could be done, but costs do not appear to be competitive with direct CCS. There is also a significant electricity consumption in conventional glass making; the carbon footprint from this can be expected to reduce in the future as the UK electricity generation sector is decarbonised.

19

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

2.4 Chemicals and Refineries

2.4.1 Summary of Presentations at Chemicals and Refineries Meeting

Membranes, Ian Metcalfe The University of Newcastle is looking at developing high temperature, dense membranes that do not have gas-phase paths across them. They are very selective for ion mobility. When an ion crosses a membrane there needs to be an opposing electrical charge crossing the membrane the other way to give electric neutrality. Membranes can be tuned for dual-ion conduction, so by charge balancing with two ions a gas separation system can be developed.

One example is CO2 permeation, where there is a path for oxygen ions – so there is a porous oxide imbibed with a molten carbonate solution which is a path for carbonate ions. So when an oxygen ion crosses the membrane, CO2 reacts with it to give a carbonate, which diffuses through and releases the CO2, and the oxygen ion is regenerated. So every time a carbonate ion passes through the membrane, oxygen needs to pass through in the opposite direction to give neutrality. This results in CO2 permeation, giving a membrane that has been purposefully designed for high temperature CO2 separation.

Cluster regions, Paul Sullivan Natural cluster regions in the UK have developed where coalfields and import terminals were located historically.

Work carried out by National Grid has shown that unused, underground, high pressure gas pipelines, which run at 70-80 bar, could be used for a vapour-phase, carbon dioxide pipeline, but the age of some of the pipes will affect the pressure used in the pipes, which may cap the amount of CO2 that can be transported.

TOTAL’s Lindsey Oil Refinery is one of the UK’s largest refineries and is located on the south bank of the Humber, potentially the largest cluster region in terms of emissions. The refinery emits about two million tonnes of CO2 per year. In the same cluster, Drax power station emits 20 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Offshore in the North Sea, and only 45km away from the source of CO2 emissions, there is an estimated nine billion tonnes of storage (six billion tonnes in saline aquifers plus three billion in depleted gas fields).

The chemical industry is clustered in four discrete UK locations, but over 50% of the UK’s chemical industry is located within the Tees Valley. Comprehensive pipeline networks already exist across Teesside: a CO2 network is a deliverable extension.

Table 2.4.1a Cluster Region CO2 volume (2009/2010)

Humber 60 Mt

Thames 28 Mt

Scotland 18 Mt

Teesside 11 Mt

Liverpool Bay 10 Mt

20

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

Transportation It is important to measure what is in the pipe, i.e. any impurities in both gaseous phase CO2 and within dense phase transport at up to 200 bar, so that we are aware of what we are putting into storage. The CO2 has to be dry – any water will cause corrosion of the carbon steel pipes. H2 in the CO2 will lower the bubble point of the CO2. SOx and NOx at high quantities can cause damage to the storage area.

Pressure CO2 emissions from chemicals processing normally come out at around atmospheric pressure, so there will be a significant energy penalty in getting it to a sufficient pressure so that it can be transported through pipes, preferably in dense phase at around 100 bar and 25˚C. There will be a need for large compressors, the power for which will rise exponentially as the inlet pressure decreases.

CO2 Emission Breakdown, Hyungwoong Ahn & Stefano Brandani Refineries and Chemicals Processing is a £60bn industry. It adds over £20bn to the UK Balance of Trade every year. 600,000 people in the UK are employed in this sector, representing 12% of total manufacturing (twice that of aerospace). In the UK there are 8 operating refineries. Together they emit about 15 million tonnes of CO2 annually (approx. 3% of total UK emissions of CO2). A UK refinery emits about 50,000 tonnes of SO2, 24,000 tonnes of NOx and about 20,000 tonnes of VOC.

Chemical production facilities emit about 1.2 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Unlike in a power plant, in a refinery there are many sources of CO2 emissions, e.g. from production of CO2 from the manufacture of H2, FCC coke burning, and acid gas removal. The principal sources of CO2 in a refinery are from fuel combustion and from the hydrogen plant. The majority of the carbon emissions come from the combustion of hydrocarbons (34.6%). H2 plants account for 5-20% of carbon emissions in a refinery, but it is, along with the Fluid Catalytic Conversion (FCC) regenerator, the largest single source of significant CO2 emission.

It is estimated that the demand for H2 in refineries will increase rapidly because of changes in the crude oil mix from ‘sweet and light’ to ‘sour and heavy’. More H2 is needed to crack the heavy fractions of crude oil. Increasing amounts of H2 are also needed for the de-sulphurisation and de-nitrogenation of the fuel. The CO2 feed in a SMR-H2 plant has 50- 60% CO2 compared to 15% CO2 in coal-fired power plant off-gas. There are various processes proposed to produce ultrapure H2 from hydrocarbon but most of them are based on steam reforming due to its high H2 yield in syngas. The research mentioned above was funded by an EPSRC first grant "Carbon Capture in the Refining Process" EP/J018198/1.

21

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

Projects BOC-Linde’s Hammerfest LNG plant, Norway (Snohvit) is the world’s first industrial project to deliver CO2 that is separated onshore and injected via subsea pipeline into a reservoir for storage. It is also Europe's first export facility for liquefied natural gas (LNG). The CO2 content in the gas from the field is 5-8%.

TOTAL emits annually about 3 million tonnes of CO2 in the UK. TOTAL has an integrated pilot demonstration CCS facility at Laqc (near Pau) in France:

Oxygen is produced in a cryogenic air separation units.

200 tonnes of CO2 per day is compressed and transported 27 km in a pipeline running across fields; it’s compressed further to 60 bar and reinjected into the depleted Rousse gas reservoir.

TOTAL also has a steam-methane reforming unit which produces virtually pure CO2.

Air Liquide is developing a large cryogenic CO2 processing unit (CPU) for oxyfuel power plants in Australia. They are also developing the same range of technology for a hydrogen plant, for SMR. They are part of the NER300 competition for a project capturing CO2 from the steam methane reforming unit at the port of Rotterdam. The capacity of the CPU will be 500,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. They will also use the technology for a small SMR in France that can handle 100,000 tonnes per year – to prove that the technology can be commercialised. The CPU is suited to high concentrations of CO2, the minimum is 50-60% CO2.

Grangemouth Refinery, Graham Bonner Grangemouth produces around 12 million tonnes of chemical products per year – it is one of INEOS’ largest manufacturing sites. This includes 10 million tonnes of refined products (e.g. petrol, diesel, Jet Fuel, fuel oils, LPGs) and 2 million tonnes of petrochemicals (e.g. ethylene, propylene, ethanol, benzene, butadiene, polyethylene, polypropylene).

4 million tonnes of CO2 emissions are produced at Grangemouth per year, which in Scotland is the second largest amount of CO2 emissions after Longannet.

To ensure Grangemouth continues to be run economically, they have undertaken various exercises to look at ways of becoming more energy and fuel efficient, e.g. Ineos has saved millions of pounds by switching fuels from using fuel oil to methane or natural gas. 99% of the fuel used to run the power station is natural gas. The bottom line is that a huge investment is required to meet any targets that are set.

At Grangemouth the cost of capturing 80% of the CO2 being emitted from the whole complex has been estimated to be £80-100 per tonne of CO2. This includes costs for compression and infrastructure setup.

22

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

Fertiliser production, Mike Walton

Ammonia is produced from natural gas, air and steam feeds; the steam-methane reforming stage to produce hydrogen is a big generator of CO2.

Thus high purity CO2, is already produced as a by-product of the ammonia production process,. Some is currently sold into the industrial gas market or supplied to glasshouses, but the majority of captured CO2 is vented into the atmosphere.

The demand for fertiliser is increasing as the world’s population continues to increase.

Growhow has a new steam turbine in use that will reduce CO2 emissions by 25,000 tonnes per year, and a phase 2 energy efficiency project is expected to save another 20,000 tonnes CO2 per year as a result of greater heat recovery.

A new process air compressor at the Ince Ammonia Plant has reduced the steam requirement in the turbine and therefore reduced the CO2 emissions by 30,000 tonnes per year.

A new Synthesis Converter & Catalyst has helped to reduce CO2 emissions by 8000 tonnes per year.

Potentially, to manufacture one tonne of nitrogen fertiliser using CCS will result in only 0.36 tonnes of CO2 being produced instead of 2.5 tonnes as was the case prior to 2011.

Annual CO2 emissions from the Billingham Ammonia plant are 965,000 tonnes per year and Ince Ammonia Plant 680,000 tonnes per year.

Conversion of natural gas, Jim Abbott

Johnson Matthey’s Process Technologies Division (JM) looks at the efficient conversion of natural gas or naphtha to ammonia, methanol or hydrogen.

JM have autothermal reforming technologies which involve reacting natural gas with air or oxygen and some steam to produce a high pressure, high temperature syngas mixture, which can then be used for pre-combustion decarbonisation.

JM are also engaged with an improved sour-shift technology process, which is a water-gas shift process that takes place in the presence of high levels of sulphur compounds. It is the process of choice when converting CO to CO2 in a pre-combustion environment from downstream of a coal gasifier.

JM have developed a catalyst so that the process can be operated for low steam. When applied to IGCC+CCS it is estimated to reduce the cost of electricity by 3.5-5.5%.

23

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

2.4.2 Options to capture CO2 from chemicals and refineries

Cogeneration of chemicals + power Cogeneration is understood but not done much; there have been some studies with CCS; being done in China Transfer products from the electricity plant could include: N2, H2, O2, residual fuels. (N2 for fertiliser from oxyfuel or IGCC, H2 for fertiliser from IGCC) Commercial example is a refinery gasifier, typically including use of high S – imported petcoke Cogeneration has been suggested to cope with the problem of intermittent electricity demand e.g. swing IGCC+cogeneration output to a storable product (such as NH3, MeOH) as well as electricity Korean government (KETEP) funded "IGCC Integrated with an H2 Pressure Swing Adsorption Process", 2011-8510020030.

Problems with CCS on refineries and chemical industries Problems are not primarily technological, but commercial and regulatory Fuel prices are uncertain, so it is difficult to make a business case (e.g. will there be a future floor price for oil?) Business models differ between sectors – e.g. payback times; refineries want returns in 5 years; a power plant wants returns in 10 years Current carbon prices are too low to drive investment.

Area Capture Option Knowledge level

Notes

Steam Methane Reforming (also ammonia plant applications)

Quest – Fluor Amine 7-9 Up to 25% CO2 at 1 atm

Cryogenic: Le Havre demo 7-9

Membrane technology/Adsorption 4-5

Capture-enhanced reforming 1-3

FCCU Oxy (CCP) pilot CCP 4-5

Post 1-7

Fired heaters (crude heater units are large)

Post-com (retrofit), more options for new

1-7

Power plant Post-com (retrofit), more options for new

1-7

Steam generation Post-com (retrofit), more options for new

1-7

Refinery gasifiers Pre-com (+air separation) 8-9 As proposed by Conoco Philips

Table 2.4.2a Refineries and CO2 capture applications

* 1-3 = novel4-6 = intermediate (i.e. know enough for learning by doing)7-9 = mature (i.e. routine)

24

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

Area Capture Option Knowledge level*

Notes

Ammonia + fertiliser production

CO2 separated from steam methane reforming for H2 production - drying and compression only

9 70% of CO2 from process available as high purity CO2 (>95% purity) (~ 1% vol. H2+ N2)

Post-com capture on combustion products from SMR

1-9 Being done already in India etc. by Fluor and MHI for urea production. ~30% of CO2 in flue gas (~10% CO2 concentration), some excess heat available at ~100 oC to potentially drive the process.

Bioethanol production

CO2 produced from fermentation 7-9 CO2 purity? But US experience and existing food industry use

Distillation heating flue gas 1-7 Probably natural gas fired in the UK

Olefins production

Post-com capture for fired heater flue gases

1-5 ~10% CO2 @ 1 atm, site-specific issues and heat integration to resolve.

Various heating applications

Post-com capture from heating by gas

1-5 Quantities vary, usually clean

Others: TiO2 production

? ?

General issues for smaller-scale industry

Small scale capture 1-2

CO2 collection? 1-2

Central collection + purification? 1-2

Table 2.4.2b Chemicals and CO2 capture applications

* 1-3 = novel4-6 = intermediate (i.e. know enough for learning by doing)7-9 = mature (i.e. routine)

25

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

3. Summary: Overview of CO2 Capture from UK Industry Sources

CCS from industry sources in the UK is expected to develop after CCS for power generation, making use of the transport and storage infrastructure that the latter has developed. CO2 capture technology developed for power generation may also be adapted for use on industry sources, although there are significant differences in operating conditions and requirements.

Given current power plant and industrial manufacturing plant locations in the UK there is significant potential for clustering of multiple CCS projects based on initial power plant ‘anchor’ projects.

Based on UK CCS Commercialisation Competition entries at the time of the meetings there are immediate possibilities for capture clusters in three areas: Scotland, Teeside and Yorkshire/Humber. Other potential areas have also been identified, including Thames and Liverpool Bay. There is good scope for synergy between clusters through interconnection and common storage sites. Storage clusters are, to some extent, independent from capture clusters.

No major new industry emission sources are envisaged; CCS is expected to be a retrofitted technology in the UK. But there are obvious uncertainties as to the size, fuel and location for future fossil power plants, including potential ‘anchor’ projects. It is also unclear to what UK industry will change; the closure of Alcan’s manufacturing facility at Lynemouth being an example.

Examples of CO2 capture in the Iron and Steel , Cement, Glass, Chemical and Refineries were examined in the workshops and considered feasible in outline. Details of the technologies to be used and hence performance and cost will, however, be almost entirely technology and site specific for the retrofit applications that expected to be the norm in the UK.

Capture technologies are expected to be based on the familiar triad of pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxyfuel , but with variations. There may clearly be some advantages in adapting developed practice for power generation, where this is applicable, but in some cases, e.g. cement manufacture where calcium carbonate for calcium looping capture is readily available, there are obvious reasons for considering other options. There are also potential synergies between CO2 capture from power generation and industry (e.g. calcium looping for power plants adjacent to cement plants, hydrogen production being used for storable chemical products when electricity demand is low). In a limited number of cases CO2 separation is already part of the industry process and only final purification and compression would be required.

The commercial models for CCS deployment may also involve ‘over the fence’ transactions between power producers and processing industries to take mutual advantage of their business specialities, analogous to some current arrangements for large CHP plants.

Transport and storage technologies for CO2 from industry sources are also expected to be similar to those for power generation, and in most cases will be shared. But commercially-achievable levels and types of impurities in industry CO2 from many sources are currently uncertain and research to monitor their concentration s and assess their (combined) effects is required.

Further details and copies of meeting notes and presentations can be found on http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/october-december-2012-ccs-industry-workshops .

26

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

Acknowledgements

This series of workshops was organised by the UK CCS Research Centre through its Secretariat with further input from BIS and DECC; the assistance of Jane Lumb and Max Mawby is gratefully acknowledged.

The UKCCSRC is supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council as part of the Research Councils UK Energy Programme.

The success of the workshop series was however entirely due to the inputs from the participants, as presenters and/or discussants. Hopefully the work that was started together here can continue into the future, with its eventual benefit being measured in CO2 permanently prevented from entering the atmosphere.

DISCLAIMER – THIS REPORT AIMS TO GIVE A REPRESENTATIVE ACCOUNT OF DISCUSSIONS AT A SERIES OF WORKSHOPS BUT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS

THE CONSIDERED VIEWS OF THE AUTHORS OR OF ANY OF THE OTHER ORGANISATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED. READERS ARE ADVISED TO RELY ENTIRELY ON THEIR PERSONAL DISCRETION AND JUDGEMENT WITH

RESPECT TO ANY AND ALL OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED.

27

DRAFT FOR COMMENT