CCS TECHNOLOGY IN E.ON Robin Irons CCS Co-ordination Group E.ON New Build and Technology 14 March 2011 APGTF LONDON
The Trilemma Environment Environmentally acceptable to society Needs to be affordable Matches Demand Cost Security
CCS technologies - capture Post-Combustion Flue Gas N 2, O 2, H 2 O CO 2 Separation Fuel Air Combustion Pre-Combustion N 2, O 2, H 2 O CO 2 CO 2 Fuel Gasification / Partial-oxidation and CO 2 Separation O 2 Air H 2 Combustion CO 2 compression, transport and storage Air Air Separation N 2 CO 2 (H 2 O) Oxyfuel Fuel Combustion Recycling (CO 2, H 2 O) N 2 O 2 Air Air Separation
CCS RD&D requires participation in all parts of the innovation chain Basic Research Applied research Pilot testing Demonstration New technology ideas Linking to scientific community Skill and competence built up Technology Tracking New business ideas Risk minimisation Process optimisation Process integration Informed buyer Up scaling experience Operational experience Long term behaviour Full chain integration Reliable KPI s Increasing requirement of activities and budgets
Full-Scale Post Combustion Capture transient simulation Investigate the impact of post combustion capture on power plant flexibility Validation of control strategies with regard to optimized operation behavior and OPEX (load changes, start-ups, shut-down)
E.ON s mobile lab for Post Combustion Capture Plants on-site analytics of CO 2 scrubbing solutions to support continuous pilot plants operation ensure proper comparison of different capture technologies and different CO 2 scrubbing solutions develop analytical procedures to ensure cost optimal operation of CCS demo plants ensure low emissions and defined CO 2 quality Possibility to offer mobile lab service to third parties Carbon CAPtain
E.ON s activities for 2 nd Generation Post Combustion Capture series of small scale pilot plants to validate technology improvements before next scale-up step Oslo Stockholm < 1 MW el, 2009, SOLVit project amine scrubbing (Aker MTU) Longannet Kopenhagen Karlshamn 15 MW th, April 2009 Chilled-Ammonia Scrubbing (NH 3 ) Esbjerg 0,25 MW el, since 2006, Esbjerg amine scrubbing (BASF, CESAR) 5,5 MW el, end 2010 amine scrubbing (MEA) Dublin 0,5 MW el, May 2008 amino acid salt scrubbing (TNO) 1MW el, Mid 2010 amine scrubbing (MEA and others) < 1 MW el, September 2009 amino acid salt scrubbing (Siemens) London Amsterdam Maasvlakte Brüssel Luxemburg Paris Wilhelmshaven Gelderland Duisburg Staudinger Darmstadt Vaduz Berlin < 1 MW el, 2010, Stadtwerke Duisburg amine scrubbing (MEA and others) Prag Wien 1MW th, 2010, TU Darmstadt Carbonate Looping Process 16 March 2011, E.ON, Page 7
Post Combustion Capture - Larger scale Large scale post-combustion capture entry into UK Government CCS Competition The planned supercritical unit at Kingsnorth, combined with UK Government funding gave a unique opportunity to demonstrate CCS on a high efficiency modern plant at near-commercial scale The Government Rules Require 300MW e amine scrubber fitted to a new supercritical coal-fired unit Capturing circa 2Mt/y CO 2 and transporting offshore for storage in the North Sea DECC-supported FEED 2010 Full chain of capture, transport and storage Power plant delayed drop in demand in market now outside timescale of Competition
Post Combustion Capture - Larger scale Large scale post-combustion capture entry into UK Government CCS Competition The planned supercritical unit at Kingsnorth, combined with UK Government funding gave a unique opportunity to demonstrate CCS on a high efficiency modern plant at nearer commercial scale The Government Rules Require 300MW e amine scrubber fitted to a new supercritical coal-fired unit Capturing circa 2Mt/y CO 2 and transporting offshore for storage in the North Sea DECC-supported FEED 2010 Full chain of capture, transport and storage Power plant delayed drop in demand in market now outside timescale of Competition The Environment Security of Supply Affordability
Introduction to the ROAD Project (Rotterdam Afvang en Opslag Demo.) Maasvlakte CCS Project c.v. is a joint venture of E.ON Benelux and Electrabel Nederland (Part of the GdF SUEZ Group) In co-operation with GDF SUEZ E&P for transport, and with TAQA Nederland proposed as the storage provider With financial support of the European Commission (EU) and the Dutch Government 11
Introduction-History Rotterdam offers great potential for CCS and E.ON and GDF SUEZ both developed projects there (among others) As one policy to help fight the economic crisis, the European Commission (EC) developed the European Economic Plan for Recovery (EEPR) late in 2008 Early in 2009 the EC published details including a shortlist of eligible CCS projects. This included both Electrabel s and E.ON s similar projects in Rotterdam E.ON and Electrabel agreed to merge their projects because they have complementary technical skills, similar objectives, and sharing costs and risks made the project more robust A joint bid was placed in July 2009 The funding agreements were finalised in Spring 2010, giving the project firm grant income (up to 180M from the EU and up to 150M from the Dutch Govt)
ROAD Project - in the Rotterdam Area
ROAD project located at Maasvlakte Construction site MPP 3 MPP 1+2 MPP= Maasvlakte Power Plant
E.ON s Power Plants 1, 2 and 3 (under construction) at Maasvlakte Text überschreiben
E.ON s Power Plant MPP3 under Construction
CCS Demo Plant at Maasvlakte (MPP3) Site CCS Installation (Capture/Transport/Storage) is a 50/50 Joint Venture between E.ON and GdF Suez Capture 250 MW el equivalent (1/4 of total plant capacity) Capture of about 1.1 Million Tonnes CO 2 per year About 25 km pipeline transport to offshore gas field Storage in mature gas field (P-18) Project could serve as nucleus/hub for Rotterdam Climate Initiative (RCI)
The CCS Value Chain of ROAD Capture Transport Storage 6 preliminary studies/feed offers received 3 suppliers/consortia invited for FEED negotiations FEED contracts with 2 suppliers/consortia signed Preferred supplier will be announced Q1/2011 16 pipeline (4 km onshore and 21 km offshore Transport capacity 5 Mton/year (dense CO 2 ) Design pressure 20 150 bar Design temperature 20 110 C Insulated pipeline to reduce required heating at platform Storage capacity in P-18 field estimated at 35 Mton First field available from 2013/4 Depth of gas fields appr. 3.500 m Original field pressure: 350 bar Heaters to ensure CO 2 temperature >35 C Pipeline being connected through riser TAQA responsible for storage and monitoring of CO 2 Source: CO2 capture at Great Plains Synfuel Plant
Why Storage under the North Sea? The Netherlands has a large amount of (almost) depleted gas reservoirs under the North Sea Depleted P-18 gas reservoirs are located close to MPP3, allowing a small transport distance Gasfield is located outside inhabited area Capacity of storage which is connected to demonstration project Gasfield meets physical and geological properties for CO 2 -storage Available from 2014
Transport and Storage - Regulation The regulations for CO 2 storage are currently under development The CCS Directive is being implemented in the Netherlands through revisions to the Mining Act This is important in defining licencing for CO 2 storage, the monitoring and verification requirements, and the long term liabilities for the stored CO 2 in the long term. The final form of these regulations could enable or prevent the project. Discussions are underway with the Dutch Government. With all involved firmly supporting the project, we believe an acceptable solution will be found.
Consider the current proposed EU system CO 2 Storage Regulation Monitoring and verification During injection requirements unquantified After closure before handover requirements unquantified Payment for post-handover monitoring for 30 years cost unquantified Financial contribution for post-handover risks (unquantified) Financial security CO 2 Emission Regulation Monitoring and verification Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Environmental and civil liabilities (low risk but hard to handle)
Consider the current proposed EU system CO 2 Storage Regulation CO 2 Emission Regulation Liability for leakage Definition of leakage is uncertain actual leakage is very unlikely but proving all the CO 2 is stored is harder Liability for emission Single upfront cost at current price of carbon (known) No further liability Must pay at the CO 2 price at time of leak (unquantified could be very high) Cost of stopping the leak is unquantified Liability for 20 years after storage has finished Conclusion under current regulation it is much lower risk to emit the CO 2 than to store it.
Storage Regulation Projects have a low rate of return at best, and initial demonstration projects are likely to be loss-making Storage regulation costs must be quantifiable in advance, proportionate to the risks of leakage, proportionate to the CO 2 stored, Associated risks and liabilities must be either within the operating companies control, or taken by the Governments / regulators Otherwise there is a strong risk that CO 2 storage regulation will prevent CO 2 storage taking place.
Why CCS takes time to develop Funding timelines (EEPR fast track, but NER-300 will probably delay projects) Delay of legal framework will delay projects; 20 months after publication of the EU Directive few Member States have transposed the directive. Projects with onshore storage are delayed due to public opposition Projects with offshore storage are delayed due to oil/gas companies hesitating to invest in new business opportunities FID requires that permits are in place covering the entire CCS value chain
Summary CCS Projects are challenging and require balancing of numerous factors. Companies along the supply chain (and regulators) are entering new areas of expertise. Traditional business models may be challenged in many areas (equipment suppliers, storage owners). There are significant commercial and regulatory barriers to making these projects happen, but these are being actively addressed To deliver a shared goal of CCS implementation at large scale, industry and regulators need to work together to develop a workable regulatory framework
Thank You
Market price volatility and stretch will greatly increase Prices spike at 7700/MWh Weather year: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 2010 Source - Pöyry - 2009
Market price volatility and stretch will greatly increase Prices spike at 7700/MWh Weather year: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Market Reform may fundamentally change how future power cost is determined but how???? 2010 Source - Pöyry - 2009