Telling the Norwegian CCS Story PART I: CCS: the path to sustainable and emission-free waste management

Transcription

1 Telling the Norwegian CCS Story PART I: CCS: the path to sustainable and emission-free waste management Webinar Q&A with Jannicke Gerner Bjerkås, CCS Director, Fortum Oslo Varme OCTOBER 2018

2 All the questions featured in this document were submitted during the webinar hosted by the Global CCS Institute. The answers below are the views of Jannicke Gerner Bjerkås, CCS Director at Fortum Oslo Varme. Q1: Is the goal to only sequester the captured CO 2 or will it also be used for products, such as renewable fuels? And, how safe is the storage in the Northern Sea: are there any studies concerning possible leakage or other side effects? (This question was also answered during the webinar) The goal is only storage because we need to permanently store the CO 2 in order to achieve a real climate mitigation effect. The purpose is to remove the CO 2 from the atmosphere, and in order to do that we need to store the CO 2 permanently below seabed. CCU is important because it can help reduce resistance towards capture and storage as well as stimulate the technological development, but it is often only a delay of the emissions. We need to permanently remove the CO 2 from the atmosphere. In order to do this, we have to store CO 2 on a large-scale. The storage technology is mature, proven and safe. It is done today both in the North Sea by Equinor, where they have been storing 1 million tons of CO 2 every year for the past 20 years, and several other places (mainly EOR in USA and Canada, but the technology is roughly the same). Q2: Do you plan to use biomass such as wood pellets? No, only waste will be used in this plant - the main fractions are regular household waste, but also some industrial waste. The biogenic part is waste with a biological origin, such as wood, textiles, food waste, paper and cardboard, etc. A lot of this waste should ideally be sorted out and recycled, but the fact is that there is a lot of biological waste fractions in the waste that have not been sorted out. Also, some of it can t be recycled because of its bad quality. The best solution for this waste is to incinerate it. So the bio- CCS in our case is not about replacing waste with biomass, but to capture CO 2 from the waste with biological origin (today, % of the waste). Q3: On negative CO 2 aspirations, that would need energy from waste combined with biomass. Is that part of the longer-term plans? Without biomass, I think very low CO 2 is the best that can be done, rather than negative CO 2. Can you please explain? See the answer to Q2. Q4: Is it possible to know more about the district heating scheme? Is it integrated with the CCS plant depending on the season? Is CCS planned to operate the entire year or only in summer? The CCS-plant is not integrated in the WtE plant, but the cleaned flue gas from the WtE process is then sent through the CO 2 capture plant before the flue gas is emitted through 2

3 the chimney. However, on future WtE plants the CC process should be an integrated part of the flue gas cleaning process. Yes, the plan is to operate the CC plant all year. In the cold season, the heat from the process (exoterm process) is utilized in the DH system. In summer the heat is either utilized to produce cooling or the process is cooled with air coolers. Q5: What is the capacity (in tons-co 2/day) of the pilot rig to be constructed and operated from February 2019? The capacity of the pilot is approximately 3.2 tons-co 2/day. This is catch and release with the purpose of learning all details regarding the process with our flue gas and Shell s amine solvent. Q6: Do you plan to test other solvents in your pilot? Do you plan to use Technology Centre Mongstad (TCM) as "consultant"? We are cooperating closely with TCM and they are contributing a lot regarding the design and operation of the pilot. We will not be testing other solvents during the FEED project, but testing other technologies might be important follow-up work in order to learn more and to develop cheaper and more efficient capture solutions for future CC plants. Q7: What is the carbon footprint of the electricity produced from waste? How much is it reduced with CCUS? Answered during the webinar The electricity and DH produced from waste heat, thus defined as CO 2-neutral because the CO 2-emissions are related to the waste handling, not the energy production. Q8: 400,000 tons/year from Klemetsrud means about 1000 tons/day emission of CO 2. Will it be trucked to port from WtE facility? How many trucks? Additionally, from port to storage, shipping vessels, what will be the capacity of these ships tons? In your vision, how many of these do we need to keep the continuous flow of CO 2 from this source to sink? Yes, the project base case is emission free truck transport to port, approximately 40 trucks per day. We are also exploring the pipeline-alternative. When it comes to the transport to permanent storage, I am not sure about the ship capacity in tons but Equinor s plan is one vessel per capture plant. Q9: What are the energy requirements of this CCS process? What are the grey emissions of the whole project? I need to check this with the project team. 3

4 Q10: On the topic of the remaining gap in the business model for WtE CCS, I would have thought the high carbon tax in Norway would cover the unit costs of CO 2 stored. On a $/tonne basis, can you quantify that remaining gap? This is the case only when it comes to gas power, because the carbon tax is on fossil energy production. That is why Equinor (former Statoil) stores the CO 2 from the Sleipner gas field they have to clean the gas for CO 2 anyway, and storing the CO 2 is cheaper than emitting and paying the carbon tax. Q11: Do you have any comment about the prediction of cost reduction in the coming future? Do you agree with the 30% everybody mentions, or do you think it is not realistic? Yes, I definitely think that is realistic. Maybe not on the next in kind, but surely the costs will have to drop in order to implement the capture technology on a large scale. This will happen with the current technology and/or with emerging technologies, where the development will ensure cheaper and more efficient capture solutions, smaller plant footprints and integrated solutions with existing flue gas cleaning processes. Q12: Do you see as a possibility in the long term that waste will be transported to plants equipped with CCS? Yes I think we will see a development where public tenders and other big actors with a CSR focus will increasingly request low carbon footprint on their waste handling services in the future. If the alternative is landfills or even WtE without CCS, transporting the waste will give large emission cuts even with long transport distances. Q13: You mention the storage facility must be built, and it is one of the challenges, could you expand that comment? I think I said (or meant) that the challenge is the cost, not developing a permanent storage in itself. This technology is mature, proven and safe, and is done today both in the North Sea by Equinor and several other places (mainly EOR in USA and Canada, but the technology is mainly the same). However, it is costly, and we need to see the ETS price rise considerably from today s level in order to develop a market that doesn t depend on governmental funding. Q14: What will you do after the CO 2 is stored? Equinor will have the responsibility for monitoring and securing the storage, and as mentioned they already do this today and have done for the last 20 years. The storage technology is mature, proven and safe, and is done today both in the North Sea by Equinor and several other places (mainly EOR in USA and Canada, but the technology is mainly the same). 4

5 Q15: Politically, do you view that putting CCS will improve the NIMYism problem that all WtE facilities face globally? In general, nobody wants industry close to their homes regardless of what kind, if they have a choice, so this will definitely be an issue if there are new WtE plants being built close to residential areas. However, it seems to me that the general resistance towards WtE is an issue mainly in countries/areas that don t have WtE today. This is not an issue in countries where they have already moved away from landfilling waste with WtE plants already in operation. I think that in countries moving from landfilling to WtE, the public communication process is crucial in order to explain why this development is necessary and sensible, and to reduce fear and misunderstandings regarding the hazards of WtE. Yes, I think that adding CCS to the WtE plants could be a big help because these projects will then not only be about sustainable waste handling, but also about executing effective and necessary climate solutions. Q16: Will the CO 2 stored can be used for something useful? The purpose is to remove the CO 2 from the atmosphere, and in order to do that we need to store the CO 2 permanently below seabed that is by far the most useful we can do with the CO 2. CCU is important as well because it can help reduce resistance towards capture and storage as well as stimulate the technological development, but it is only a delay of the emissions we need to remove it permanently. In order to do this, we have to store CO 2 on a large scale. Q17: Are other countries supporting this initiative? Yes, we experience a lot of interest both from different industrial actors and other countries, but I think the EU and industry are waiting to see whether this project will actually be realized. The world has seen a lot of these projects being stopped in the 12th hour, and it is crucial that we this time go all the way and can offer Europe a safe and reliable solution to reducing emissions by storing CO 2 permanently below seabed. Q17: Why can't the CO 2 be directly injected in the ocean site instead of having a temporary storage? From what I have understood it is a complicated process to inject CO 2 directly from vessels to the storage, vulnerable to high sea and bad weather, and Equinor has therefore chosen a solution with an intermediate storage where the CO 2 can be released from the ships in a protected port with calm waters. From the intermediate storage at Øygarden, the liquid CO 2 will be transported via pipeline to the storage area, where it will be pumped down to about 3000 metres below seabed. 5

6 Q19: Do you expect many different issues when treating the flue gas from the WtE plant compared with a power plant? For example gas contaminants that you expect that could damage the amine solution. This question was also answered during the webinar The existing cleaning process of the flue gas in the WtE plant is very thorough, and tests show that our flue gas is much cleaner than flue gas from coal. There are several CC plants in operation on coal power plants today, so this should not be a problem. However, we will learn more about the details regarding the reaction between our specific flue gas components and Shell s amine solvent during the operation of the pilot rig. Q20: Are you not concerned about the timeline and the sense of urgency? Answered on the webinar Yes, timeline is very critical for this project. Q21: How will you deal with amines (toxic by-products) and local acceptability? See answers to Q23 and Q15. Q22: The amine CO 2-capture process will require a large amount of low-grade heat (e.g bar steam) for amine solvent regeneration. The WtE plant exports low grade heat for district heating. Therefore the CCS process will compete with district heating for the available low-grade heat that is available after power generation from higher grade heat. Will the CCS plant take priority over district heating for access to low-grade heat? The CC plant will utilize steam in the stripper process, so this means it will compete with our electricity production. The heat from the CC process (stripper) will be utilized in the DH system, which means that we exchange the lost electricity production with increased heat production. However, the energy solution can be designed differently for other plants depending on what is most suitable/efficient. Q23: Do you take care about the emission of amine aerosols if you employ amine technology for CO 2 capture? The flue gas will be cleaned for amines before it is released so that the amount of amines is well within the emission requirements set by the regulatory authorities. The limit values will be well within what is regarded as so-called negligible risk to the environment (air and water). Amines break down over time, and this is part of the government's emission permit. The course of events regarding amines released into the atmosphere has been studied in detail at TCM, and an important finding is that amines and especially nitrosamines break down quite quickly (hours instead of days) in the atmosphere. Q24: Will impurities in flue gas from wastes degrade amine solvent? Answered on the webinar- see also Q19. 6