1. Nordic CCS Roadmap
Group 1
Ragne Marie Lilleby Helberg
Yu Tsing Florence Chow
Susantha Dissanayake
Bahador Najafiazar
Karolina Petela
Koteswara Rao Putta
Mohammad Nooraiepour
Nordic CCS Roadmap
Ragne Marie Lilleby Helberg, Yu Tsing Florence Chow, Susantha Dissanayake, Bahador Najafiazar, Karolina Petela,
Koteswara Rao Putta, Mohammad Nooraiepour
A Solution For CO2 Emission Reduction…
2. Total emissions in the
Nordics
~195MtCO2
Nordic
Emissions by Sector
Energy 39%
Industry
25%
Transport
25%
Other
Transformation
0%
Other 4%
Agriculture
6%
Waste 1%
0 10 20 30 40 50
Total emissions /Mt CO2
3. Major Point Sources
32.1 Power Generation
44.4 Pulp and paper 7.7 Waste treatment
11.8 Iron & steel
3.8 Non-ferrous metals
3.6 Chemicals6.5 Cement & lime
Oil & Gas
22.6
CO2 em.(Mt/a)
0.1 – 0.5
0.5 – 1.0
1.0 – 1.5
1.5 – 2.0
2.0 – 3.0
3.0 – 4.0
4.0 – 5.0
http://geoserver.ivl.se/nordiccs2011.html
5. 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2009 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
EmissionReduction[MtCO2]
Renewables in power generation and end-use sectors End-use fuel and electricity efficiency
End-use fuel switching from fossil fuel Carbon Capture & Storage
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) will reduce emissions
further than what efficiency and fuel switching can achieve…
6. Capture Technology
Industry/source
Capture
Technology
Is it possible to
implement?
Comments
Iron and steel Pre and Oxyfuel
combustion
Difficult Due to level of CO2
reductions and
modifications needed
Cement and lime Post combustion Possible 100% CO2 capture
requires extra energy
Oil and gas Post combustion possible Need to integrate flue
gas lines to single point
Paper and Pulp Post combustion possible Transportation might be
costly in some countries
Aluminum Post combustion Not possible Due to process
limittaions and low CO2
concentration
Chemical industry Post combustion
and PSA
Possible
7. Nordic
Nordic Storage Potentials
1. DepletedHydrocarbonReservoirs
2. CO2 EOR
3. Saline Aquifers
4. Mineral Trapping
[Anthonsen et al. 2013]
Nordic
countries
59%
rest of
Europe
41%
Potential Storage CapacityStorage Potential Characteristics Capacity
Hydrocarbon Reservoirs
Well known geology
Limited capacity
Possible EOR
~29 Gt
Saline Aquifers
Large capacity
limited knowledge of geology
~76Gt
Mineral Trapping
Uncertainty in storage capacity
Developing technology
~62-333 Gt
8. Nordics Potential storage sites
www.ntnu.edu
Norway
2 successful projects in Norway:
Snøhvit and Sleipner
Options:
Big potential in saline aquifers: ~43Gt
e.g. Utsira, Gassum fm.
Hydrocarbon fields: ~27Gt
HIGHEST POSSIBLE POTENTIAL
[Anthonsen et al. 2013]
9. www.ntnu.edu
Denmark
Geological structures
in formations like Bunter Sandstone,
Skagerrak, Gassum
Capacity: ~16 Gt
Hydrocarbon Fields: 2,2 Gt
Nordics Potential storage sites
www.ntnu.edu
[Anthonsen et al. 2013]
10. Finland
Mineral carbonation in ultramafic
rocks: ~2-3Gt
Question about onshore storage
No storage in sedimentary formation
Nordics Potential storage sites
www.ntnu.edu
[Anthonsen et al. 2013]
11. Sweeden
Deep saline aquifers:
South-east of Baltic Sea: 450Mt- 4,5Gt
Skagerrak Formation: 80-150Mt
Relatively SMALL potential capacity
NO allowance for onshore storage
www.ntnu.edu
[Anthonsen et al. 2013]
Nordics Potential storage sites
12. Iceland
Only possible as mineral carbonation: ~330Gt
Doubts about capacity, beyond the
immaturity of technology!
Extensive field scale CO2 injection is currently
ongoing in connection to a geothermal power plant
www.ntnu.edu
[Anthonsen et al. 2013]
Nordics Potential storage sites
13. Ship
Pipe line
Small tankers trough land
Transport Options
Ship transpotation challenges
Leagal barriers
Reachability to the production site
Limited excperince with CO2
14. Ship
Pipe line
Small tankers trough land
Transport Options
Pipeline challenges
Cost
Pressure drop in longer distance
Limited knowledges
15. Ship
Pipe line
Small tankers trough land
Transport Options
Small Land Tankers
Cost
Volume
Safety
16. CAPTURE (40-50€/tCO2 )
• Inevitable
• Depending on technology (its commercialisation)
TRANSPORT (15-25€/tCO2 )
• Depending on technology
• Can be decreased by choosing the closest location
• Can be decreased by the recycle of CO2 (EOR, food industry)
STORAGE (6-15€/tCO2 )
• Can be decreased by the recycle of CO2
CCS Implementation Cost
17. Three levels of actions are required:
Governmental and political decisions
Technological and Technical considerations
Social movements
Plan of Action (POA)
18.
19. We should notice to opportunities and capabilities for
regional synergy…
20. 1. Industrial CCS:
CO2 clusters and joint storage sites will significantly
reduce costs
2. Natural gas CCS (Gas Sweetening)
Cost of different NORDICCS Case Scenarios (Mazzetti et al 2013)
shows that removal of CO2 from natural gas before export to Europe is
the most economically viable case
3. Bio CCS
Technical Scenarios
21. Aalborg Portland AS (Denmark), NorCem (Norway) and Preemraff
refineries (Sweeden)
• Total CO2 emissions/yr: 4.2 Mt
Incentives?
• Reduction of costs; uses benefits of economies of scale
• Aalborg Portland and NorCem are among the lowest cost projects
• NorCem has already experience through the CCS test facility
• Nordic Synergies – accelerating CCS solutions
• Portland Cement and NorCem have the same owners –easier to
implement(?)
• Potential success story (NorCem want to be technology leaders –
forefront)
Clustering is a necessity
[K.Onarheim et al 2015]
23. General propositions
• Seeking for technologies and plans to reduce cost of capture
• Government funding (For FOAK plants)
• Incentives
• Public acceptance and support
• Biogenic CO2 has to be included in ETS
CO2 clusters and joint storage sites
• Agreement of shipping of CO2
• Guideline for shipment agreement and put ting it in practice
• Optimized transport route
And
• Cost split borne by producers or all end users?
• Fair-trade, ‘ethical products’
• Feed in Tarifs
Framework
24. The Troll platform is among the largest and heaviest structures ever made.
Total construction mass: 1,2 Mt
Calculate % contribution from the largest point sources
Make up only <1% of total emissions
Nordic countries are in a good position. [manuscript from the video presentation]
2-4 DC scenarios and different solutions
Kyoto agreement
Other national environmental goals
Role of Government (plans)
The role of CCS will be to reduce emissions further than what efficiency and fuel switching can achieve, so we envisage CCS applied at some fossil energy sources, but more at biogenic sources.
There are possible sites in Skagerrak and Gassum Formation between DK and Sweden sandstone formation
We will Focus on it as an option of CLUSTERED storage from point sources of Norway and/or Sweden
Importance of MAPPING projects:
GestCo
GeoCapacity
Norwegian CO2 storage atlas
CO2Stop GIS-Project
There are possible sites in Skagerrak and Gassum Formation between DK and Sweden sandstone formation
We will Focus on it as an option of CLUSTERED storage from point sources of Norway and/or Sweden
Possibility of storage limited due to questionable ON SHORE storage
Small potential capacity near Gottland – not really useful for our aims
Iceland
Iceland has significant reactive basalt where CO2 can be stored as solid magnesium or calcium carbonates
Extensive field scale CO2 injection is currently ongoing in connection to a geothermal power plant
To cases are presented in Skagestad et al (2014):
Pipeline transportation to basaltic rock at Hellisheioi
Combination of pipeline and ship to the Utsira formation in the North sea.
The current government (2015) is unclear in its policy and government funding for CCS research is limited
No capture and storage initiatives have been made for industrial CO2 emissions in Iceland
Basically CO2 production facility and storing facilities are differe. Basically sotring capacities are widely available in offshore though co2 produced in land.
Transport via ships were recognized as a best solution however several factors affect to the solution. Cost obvious factor though it can be manage some government regulation and EU regulations are expected to be followed strictly.
Transportation is not continuous
Pipe line transportation is kind of viable oftion for continuous flow of co2 from production site to staoring facility. However offshore sites have problem with piping. Have to be monitor carefully for lekage
Small amout of co2 can be sent via small land tankers to the storing facilty or either to ship.
Cost, volume, safety are cruicial factor to be consider.
Basically CO2 production facility and storing facilities are differe. Basically sotring capacities are widely available in offshore though co2 produced in land.
Transport via ships were recognized as a best solution however several factors affect to the solution. Cost obvious factor though it can be manage some government regulation and EU regulations are expected to be followed strictly.
Transportation is not continuous
Pipe line transportation is kind of viable oftion for continuous flow of co2 from production site to staoring facility. However offshore sites have problem with piping. Have to be monitor carefully for lekage
Small amout of co2 can be sent via small land tankers to the storing facilty or either to ship.
Cost, volume, safety are cruicial factor to be consider.
Basically CO2 production facility and storing facilities are differe. Basically sotring capacities are widely available in offshore though co2 produced in land.
Transport via ships were recognized as a best solution however several factors affect to the solution. Cost obvious factor though it can be manage some government regulation and EU regulations are expected to be followed strictly.
Transportation is not continuous
Pipe line transportation is kind of viable oftion for continuous flow of co2 from production site to staoring facility. However offshore sites have problem with piping. Have to be monitor carefully for lekage
Small amout of co2 can be sent via small land tankers to the storing facilty or either to ship.
Cost, volume, safety are cruicial factor to be consider.
Only a proposition!
What do you think of this idea of introducing our creation of the Roadmap?
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) could play a vital role in reducing CO2 emissions in the Nordic countries. However, the main application may not be in the power sectors. Capture cost from some of the other stationary sources, such as refineries, petrochemical plants, cement plants and steel plants, could be cheaper than that of the power plants. Perhaps one should identify the low hanging fruit and start CCS from these lower cost options. However, CO2 emissions from these areas only contribute to less than a quarter of the total. Eventually CCS from power plants will be required to achieve CO2 neutral in 2050.
There is some synergy in treating the region as one CO2-neutral area, as there is larger potential for CO2 negative contributions through bio-CCS in Finland and Sweden than in Norway, Denmark or Iceland.
The following illustration indicates (subjectively, but still) the countries‟ relative strengths in some of the most crucial areas for emission reductions. The region should aquire for instance generic carbon capture technologies from regions where capture at large scale will play an important role but be sure to apply skills in areas where there are competitive advantages. By recognizing and combining each country‟s advantages development synergies will be found.
Most promising
[In the Nordic CCS project, economical analysis of 10 case studies that is likely to be the most cost-efficient solution for CCS deployment. Based on this and lectures we have suggested three different scenarios in order to meet the goals.
Industrial CCS
Natural gas CCS
Bio CCS
Cost of different NORDICCS Case Scenarios (Mazzetti et al 2013) shows that removal of CO2 from natural gas before export to Europe is the most economically viable case. We have chosen to emphasize the industrial CCS/pooling of point sources due to its great advantages (or something). Bio CCS…?]
The cement plants in Norway and Denmark together with the Preemraff refineries on Sweeden’s west coast could potentially incorporate a larger tranport cluster as all plants are situated on the cost, which facilitates transport both by pipeline and tanker.
The sources are
1. located in close proximity,
2. within a short distance of a potential joint storage site in the Gassum formation on the Danish continental shelf (see graph) or via easy ship transportation to the well-characterized Utsira formation.
3. A potential large scale of such a cluster could also make it a candidate for CO2-EOR projects in nearby oil fields, thus reducing cost even further
Joint CCS projects could allow scale up
ETS
The current European trade market (EU ETS) is not effective: the cost of carbon emission allowances is too low to incentivize CCS.
A restructuring is needed to elevate the ETS price to a level which will incentivize environmental friendly investments like CCS
“Ethical” products
One potential solution is to place a CO2 tax on products imported from countries outside the EU ETS. ETS->global system->making it possible for European industry to compete, while providing environmentally friendly products.
Unwanted side effects: disturb normal market mechanisms.
Governmental support/funding
CCS projects are large and complex projects -> CCS incurs with significant financial risks (requirements for new infrastructure, new storage sites etc). It will be needed for governments to co-invest in establishing the first CCS plants through capital grants.
Risk is not only CAPEX, but also the operational cost over the lifetime of the project -> must address long-term financial reliability
Government funding for CAPEX has been key to implementation of large-scale CCS projects in US and Canada. FOAK>NOAK
CCS certificates for fossil fuel suppliers
Emitter pays->supplier pays
Fossil fuel suppliers have a minimum share of low carbon energy in their energy supply or produce certicificates equivalent to this.
CO2 tax/ Reward system as incentive/green taxes
The cost of emissions must be high before CCS is deployed and it may be difficult to gain political acceptance of CO2 taxes.
A more positive approach: CCS operators might be rewarded in the form of reduced taxes, or to make a larger share of the taxes connected to emissions.This could incentivize the development of projects.
Feed in tariffs (FIT)
FIT already exist for renewables in Finland. It is typically a policy mechanism designed to accelerate investment in renewable energy technologies. Its offering long-term contracts to renewable energy producers, typically based on the cost of generation of each technology. Rather than pay an equal amount for energy, however generated, technologies such as wind power, for instance, are awarded a lower per-kWh price.
