Eleventh Annual Conference on Carbon Capture, Utilization & Sequestration

Transcription

1 Eleventh Annual Conference on Carbon Capture, Utilization & Sequestration CO 2 transportation COCATE - Large-scale CCS Transportation infrastructure in Europe Key outcomes Gaëlle Bureau-Cauchois, Geogreen Sandrine Decarre, IFP Energies nouvelles Yann Le Gallo, Geogreen April 30 May 3, 2012 David L. Lawrence Convention Center Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

2 Presentation outline Project description Objectives Flue gases collection network CO 2 collection network Export systems Lessons learnt Next steps

3 Project description Research Project funded by the European Community under FP7 for a total operated budget 4.5M (EC contribution 3M ) 1 st January 2010 to 31 th December countries involved: France, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, South Africa 9 partners

4 Le Havre France Objectives The Netherlands Source 1 Source x Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5 Pooling Centre #1 Pooling Centre #2 Pipeline up to Ship up to Data Collection and Pooling Scenario definition Flue Gas collection network CO 2 stream collection network Design, Network Management, Risks, Economics From a case study to a generic strategy of deployment

5 Workflow WP2: Collecting network and export line lifetime Thermodynamics and corrosion Network Management WP1: Global Capture to Storage Transport Network Definition and design of networks from Le Havre to Strategy of deployment including results of all WPs WP3: Safety of global capture to storage network Development of a Safety Management Toolkit Risk assessment of the integrated CCS chain (collection networks, export systems) WP5: Management WP6: Dissemination WP4: Economic Study Economic assessment of Le Havre case Macro-economic analysis: investment strategy Economic model

6 Sources Considered

7 Sources Repartition TOTAL CO 2 EMISSIONS CONSIDERED: 14.5MTCO 2 /y 5% 4% 27% Refinery #1 Refinery #2 Petrochemical industries 28% Others (Incinerator, car manufacture, glasswork,compressor test platform) Coal Power Plant Chemical industries (Ammonia & urea production, industrial gases production) Cement Factory 1% 9% 26% Most of the concentrations are ranging from 5 to 15 % which is the typical concentration coming from combustion processes

8 Flue gas/solvent collection networks Source 1 Source x Source 2 Source 3 Pooling Centre #1 Source 4 Source 5 Pooling Centre #2 Flue Gas/Solvent collection network Assumption: Post-combustion capture process

9 Pooling centres studied

10 Flue gas/solvent collection networks Options compared FG Blower FG Treatment before Absorption CO 2 Absorption Amine Regeneration FG Blower FG Treatment before Absorption CO 2 Absorption Amine Regeneration FG Compressor FG Treatment before Absorption CO 2 Absorption Amine Regeneration FG Treatment before Absorption CO 2 Absorption Pump Pump Amine Regeneration Next to the stack At the pooling centre level Amine pipelines Flue Gas (FG) pipelines

11 Flue gas/solvent collection networks Main Conclusions Technical blocking points to the transport of flue gas: Space limitation Large power consumption for flue gas transport If flue gas flowrate > 10 5 m 3 /h: common regeneration concept can be interesting if there is no absorption unit in the vicinity (max. 150m) of the source (transport of amine) velocity limit set by standards to avoid vibration and noise Corrosion is an issue (Experiments are currently underway to confront to models) MOC of pipelines transporting flue gas should be chosen with care to limit any kind of corrosion or erosion during the transport of flue gases : different coatings are tested within the project Economic: For a given concentration, individual yearly emissions > 500ktCO 2 : a stand alone capture unit is more competitive individual yearly emissions < 500ktCO 2 : transporting the flue gases even in stainless steel pipelines is better than a stand alone capture unit per emission point For pooling huge sources and/or low CO 2 concentrated ones, pooling amine instead of flue gas seems to be a better economic choice should be confirmed Risks: A specific risk methodology has been developed in the project (based on Bayesian network): The results will be available at the end of the project

12 CO 2 collection networks Source 1 Source x Source 2 Source 3 Pooling Centre #1 Source 4 Source 5 Pooling Centre #2 CO 2 collection network Ship (CO 2 at -50 C/6.5bar) Liquefaction required Pipeline (CO 2 at 20 C/150bar) Compression required Options compared: Compression/liquefaction at the pooling centres level or at the hub level

13 CO 2 collection networks Main conclusions Minimize the low pressure transport Dense and Liquid transport best options from an economic standpoint (costs driven by electricity consumption) If there is enough space at the pooling centres level, conditioning before transport should happen at this place and not at the hub level Common hub CO 2 transported in dense phase At the hub level Either liquefied by expansion Or, pumped for pipeline transport More expensive than ammonia cycles but flexibility when mixed export systems are used

14 CO 2 export systems On/offshore pipelines Source 1 Source x Source 2 Source 3 Pooling Centre #1 Source 4 Source 5 Pooling Centre #2 Pipeline up to Onshore route: 616km Offshore route: 505km Dense transport P in,onshore = 150bar P in,offshore = 200bar

15 CO 2 export systems Pipeline Le Havre Main Conclusions Onshore transport For our specific case (France, low electricity price), whatever the flow rate, the cost optimized options are with small diameters and 1 pumping station every km Small diameter option allows having smaller upfront investment From a risk standpoint, pumping stations =sectioning, containment in case of CO 2 leak Offshore transport Offshore pipeline is 30% more expensive than onshore pipeline (Laying and material) Offshore pipeline may be interesting if the pipeline goes directly from Le Havre to an offshore storage site without passing by if social acceptance or risk is an issue

16 Source 1 CO 2 export systems Source x Ships Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5 Pooling Centre #1 Pooling Centre #2 Ship up to 60 hour cycle 3 ship sizes studied: 20,000-30,000 40,000m 3 (-50.3 C, 6.5bar)

17 CO 2 export systems Ship Export Le Havre Main Conclusions Costs independent of the ship sizes (20,000 to 40,000m 3 ) but depend on the utilization rate Key costs are: Fuel 30% of the total cost Harbour fees 30% of the total cost

18 CO 2 export systems From pooling centres in Le Havre to For the baseline scenario (13.1MtCO2/y transported from 2020), with the assumptions chosen in COCATE (Discount Rate=8%, project lifetime=30 years), the cost-optimized option to transport CO 2 from the 5 pooling centres

19 Implementation strategies CO 2 captured (Mt/y) Over-designs from 2020 Two step investments one type of export Two step investments Two types of export Two step investments Ship then pipeline alone DISMANTLING 1 step deployment pipeline: cheapest option (17 /t) 4.3Mt/y 6.55Mt/y 8.8Mt/y 13.1Mt/y /t

20 Can small emitters join the infrastructure? Small emission sources (<50ktCO 2 /y): very high stand alone costs Shared infrastructure = economies of scale How this positive externality should be split between emitters? Cost sharing methods (regular accounting and game theory inspired methods) and tariff policies (linear, two part, capacity based) were tested Even in a shared infrastructure, it is hardly cost efficient for very small emitters to be part of a joint project Specific public policy schemes may be required to attract small emitters: subsidies policy targeting small users derogation rules

21 COCATE Lessons learnt so far Flue gas collection network Pool if CO 2 volume smaller than 500kt/y Option: transport capture solvent instead of flue gas CO 2 collection network Minimize low pressure transport Envisage a common hub if mixed export systems (ship and pipeline) Onshore pipeline cost optimized options: small diameters and 1 pumping station every km Offshore pipeline 30% more expensive than onshore pipeline Ship Ship size does not matter in terms of cost if utilization rate is maximized Fuel and Harbour fees account for 60% of the total cost Comparison Onshore pipeline less expensive but big upfront investment One step deployment less expensive but incentives required from beginning

22 COCATE Future steps Results from corrosion and coatings experiments Risk assessments for the collection networks and the export systems Building of an economic tool to select the optimized export system between several sources and several sinks Strategy of deployment for Le Havre case Applicability to other industrial basins

23 THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION Contact: Gaëlle BUREAU - CAUCHOIS gbr@geogreen.fr