the icheme energy centregreeshma gadikota, princeton university jon gibbins, ukccsrc jonas helseth,...
Post on 21-Jun-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Slide 1
Introducing the IChemE Energy
Centre
@EnergyIChemE
27 July 2016
www.icheme.org/energycentre
Slide 2
Timetable
18:00 Introduction from the Chair
18:05 Report presentation
18:25 Q&A
18:30 Panel Discussion
19:30 Refreshments and networking
20:30 Close
Slide 3
The IChemE Energy Centre
Systems thinking solutions for the global energy economy
launched in March 2015
the Centre will provide an evidence-based chemical
engineering perspective on global energy challenges
To find out more visit www.icheme.org/energycentre, email
energycentre@icheme.org or tweet @EnergyIChemE
Slide 4
IChemE Energy Centre Board
Chair:
Professor Stefaan Simons, Brunel
University London
Vice-Chairs:
Professor Richard Darton, University of
Oxford
Professor Geoff Maitland, Imperial
College London
Secretary:
Dr Niall Mac Dowell, Imperial College
London
Leadership Forum Coordinator:
Dr Rachael Hall, GE Power
Allyson Black, Caltex Refineries
Toby Chancellor-Weale, KBR
Antonio Della Pelle, Enerdata
Dr Gareth Forde, All Energy Pty
Professor Sanette Marx, North-West
University
Professor Jim Petrie, University of
Sydney
Ben Salisbury, Horizon Nuclear Power
Johan Samad, Petrofac Energy
Developments
Paul Smith, SSE
Shane Watson, Maersk Oil Qatar AS
Board members Executive officers
Slide 5
Join the Leadership Forum
Play a key role by:
engaging in energy policy
answering specific technical
questions
providing expert advice
To get involved email:
energycentre@icheme.org
Slide 6
Read the paper - shared via webinar
Slide 7
The Future of CCS
CCS Forum 2016
#poweringCCS
Niall Mac Dowell, Imperial
College London
Slide 8
Fuss, S., et al. (2014). Betting on negative emissions. Nature Climate Change, 4(10), 850–853
Outcome of COP21, December, 2015
Slide 9
Are fossil fuels hard to displace?
NO
YES
Is climate
change an
urgent
matter?
NO
A nuclear or
renewables world
unmotivated by
climate.
Most people in the
fuel industries and
most of the public are
here.
YES
Environmentalists,
nuclear advocates
are often here.
To encourage CCS
one needs to be here.
From: S. Socolow, Gordon CCS Conference, 2015
Four World Views
Slide 10
Slide 11
Jacard, M., “Sustainable Fossil Fuels”, 2006
Slide 12
Not having CCS is uniquely costly for 2oC
Slide 13
Ali Abbas, University of Sydney
André Bardow, RWTH Aachen University
Nick Bevan, DECC
Andy Boston, ERP
Solomon Brown, University of Sheffield
Kyra Sedransk Campbell, Imperial College London
Andrew Cavanagh, Statoil
Dominique Copin, Total
Benjamin Court, Global CCS Institute
Ioannis Economou, Texas A&M University at Qatar
Paul Fennell, Imperial College London
Greeshma Gadikota, Princeton University
Jon Gibbins, UKCCSRC
Jonas Helseth, Bellona
Howard Herzog, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Alexandra Howe, Institution of Chemical Engineers
Iftikhar Huq, Suncor
George Jackson, Imperial College London
David Jones, BG Group
Jasmin Kemper, IEAGHG
Sam Krevor, Imperial College London
Catherine Leroi, Total
Will Lochhead, DECC
Wilfried Maas, Shell
Niall Mac Dowell, Imperial College London
Iain Macdonald, Imperial College London
Guido Magneschi, Global CCS Institute
Geoff Maitland, Imperial College London
Michael Matuszewski, University of Pittsburgh
Theo Mitchell, CCSa
Mona J. Mølnvik, SINTEF
Alissa Park, Columbia University
Camille Petit, Imperial College London
Alfredo Ramos, PSE
Jeff Reimer, UC Berkeley
David Reiner, University of Cambridge
Tony Ripley, DECC
Caroline Saunders, Foreign & Commonwealth Office
Mark Sceats, Calix
Nilay Shah, Imperial College London
Martin Trusler, Imperial College London
Jan van der Stel, Tata Steel
Jennifer Wilcox, Stanford University
Rupert Wilmouth, Government Office for Science
Celia Yeung, EPSRC
“what has happened in the last
decade…and what should we do next?
Slide 14
Slide 15
Key conclusions and priorities
1. Development of a computational framework to
understand the dynamic interplay between
scientific and technological advancements, their
impacts on the power markets, and the broader
socio-economic consequences of deploying
CCS
This will address the question “if I have a new
process, will it make a difference?”
Slide 16
Key conclusions and priorities
2. Development of a computational framework to
rapidly screen new solvents and sorbents for
CO2 capture based on molecular level
information and provide process level cost and
performance information.
This will debottleneck the development of step-
change materials and reduce/eliminate “false
hope”
Slide 17
Key conclusions and priorities
3. An updating of benchmarks is vital. State-of-the-
art power plants combined with current materials
can generate low-carbon electricity more
efficiently than the current fleet
The current “benchmark” is 30 wt% MEA, which
requires ~ 3.5 – 4.0 GJ/tCO2. Industrial best
practice is in the range of 2.3 GJ/tCO2.
Slide 18
Key conclusions and priorities
4. The point of CCS is climate change mitigation.
This implies the permanent storage of CO2.
The de-risking of CO2 storage infrastructure
around the world via exploration and
characterisation of suitable geological structures
is more urgent than the development of new
capture technologies.
The Asia-pacific region is a priority here.
Slide 19
Key conclusions and priorities
5. CO2 utilisation via Enhanced Oil Recovery
(EOR) is mature, and has the potential to
provide a near-term, market-driven pull for the
deployment of CO2 transport infrastructure.
EOR is not a panacea, and can lead to the net
emission of CO2.
There is evidence that EOR can displace other
hydrocarbons, leading to “avoided CO2”
Slide 20
Key conclusions and priorities
6. The market for products derived from CO2 will
be very small relative to what is needed to be
stored as part of climate change mitigation.
To contribute to climate change mitigation, CO2
needs to be stored “forever”. Delaying emission
for ~ 50 years simply does not count from the
perspective of the climate.
Using CO2 can have the effect of materially
reducing the environmental footprint of existing
chemical processes.
Slide 21
Key conclusions and priorities
7. “Efficient” CCS is necessary but insufficient for
its deployment. A focus on the impact of CCS on
the “£/MWh” is key
Given low fossil fuel prices, an efficiency
improvement at the cost of increased CAPEX
may be counter productive
Materials with accelerated rates of heat and
mass transfer may be key here
Slide 22
Key conclusions and priorities
8. Decoupling the cost of power generation or
industrial processes with CO2 capture and the
requisite CO2 transport infrastructure is key.
Initial efforts to deploy CCS have included both
the cost of capture and associated infrastructure
in project costs.
Leads to initial project costs being significantly
inflated relative to the potential for the
subsequent cost reduction once infrastructure
costs can be shared.
Slide 23
Key conclusions and priorities
9. The role of electricity markets in the
development of CCS technologies needs to be
carefully evaluated, with particular attention to
the way in which CCS power plants will interact
with the electricity markets.
It is highly unlikely that CCS plants will provide
baseload generation, although this will inevitably
vary between national energy systems.
Slide 24
Key conclusions and priorities
10.It is vital that the near-term (2030) targets do not
prohibit medium (2050) or long-term plans.
E.g., to meet the COP21 targets, vast amounts
of BECCS may be required.
BECCS cannot exist without a mature and
derisked CCS industry. Greater insight into the
role of BECCS within the power sector, with
emphasis on the water-carbon-energy nexus is
required
Slide 25
Summary and conclusions
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is requested to
make funds available for projects via the Mission Innovation
initiative.
The Mission Innovation initiative needs to explicitly include
CCS as a technology of interest.
There is interest in identifying whether the Oil and Gas
Climate Initiative (OGCI) can take the lead on the study of
identifying the low hanging fruit for EOR.
An effort to investigate opportunities for collaborative
activities with Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance
(COSIA) and the OGCI as part of the Mission Innovation
initiative would also be of broad interest
top related