INTRODUCTION

1. CO2 capture and geological storage - state of the art, ongoing projects EC FP6 EU GEOCAPACITY CO2 EAST and prospects for the Baltic region

2. INTRODUCTION • CO2 capture and storage is a pioneer for Estonia research and applied area started by Institute of Geology, TUT in 2006 by two projects funded by 6th Framework Programme of European Comission • 1) Assessing European Capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide (2006-2008), 26 participants from 23 countries (EUGEOCAPACITY) • 2) CO2 capture and storage networking extension to new member states (1.10. 2006-31.03. 2009), 8 countries (CO2EAST)

3. Both projects were organised by ENeRG, the European Network for Research in Geo-energy, established in 1993 and represented by 24 countries • http://energnet.nextnet.ro/

4. Assessing European Capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide (2006-2008), Euroopas süsinikdioksiidi geoloogilise ladustamisvõime hindamine (2006-2008) • 1Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) – Co-ordinatorDenmark • 2Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski" (US)Bulgaria • 3University of Zagreb - Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering (RGN)Croatia • 4Czech Geological Survey (CGS)Czech Republic • 5Institute of Geology at Tallinn University of Technology (IGTUT)Estonia • 6Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Miniéres (BRGM)France • 7Institute Francais du Petrole (IFP)France • 8Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR)Germany • 9Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (IGME)Greece • 10Eötvös Loránd Geophysical Institute of Hungary (ELGI)Hungary • 11Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale (OGS)Italy • 12Latvian Environment, Geology & Meteorology Agency (LEGMA)Latvia • 13Institute of Geology & Geography (IGG)Lithuania • 14Geological Survey of the Netherlands (TNO-NITG)Netherlands • 15EcofysNetherlands • 16Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute - Polish Academy of Sciences (MEERI)Poland • 17Geophysical Exploration Company (PBG)Poland • 18National Institute of Marine Geology and Geo-ecology (GeoEcoMar)Romania • 19Dionýz Štúr State Geological Institute (SGUDS)Slovakia • 20GEOINŽENIRING d.o.o. (GEO-INZ)Slovenia • 21Instituto Geológico y Minero de Espana (IGME)Spain • 22British Geological Survey (BGS)United Kíngdom • 23EniTecnologie (Industry Partner)Italy • 24Endesa Generación (Industry Partner)Spain • 25Vattenfall AB (Industry Partner)Sweden/Poland • 26Tsinghua University (TU)P.R. China • http://nts1.cgu.cz/portal/page/portal/geocapacity

5. The objectives of the project • To make an inventory and mapping of major CO2 emission point sources in 13 European countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain), and review of 4 neighbouring states: Albania, Macedonia (FYROM), Bosnia-Herzegovina, Luxemburg) as well as updates for 5 other countries (Germany, Denmark, UK, France, Greece) • conduct assessment of regional and local potential for geological storage of CO2 for each of the involved countries • carry out analyses of source-transport-sink scenarios and conduct economical evaluations of these scenarios • provide consistent and clear guidelines for assessment of geological capacity in Europe and elsewhere • further develop mapping and analysis methodologies (i.e. GIS and Decision Support System) • develop technical site selection criteria • initiate international collaborative activities with the P.R. China, a CSLF member, with a view to further and closer joint activities

6. CO2 capture and storage networking extension to new member states (1.10. 2006-31.03. 2009)CO2 hoidlate võrgu laiendamine uutele liikmesriikidele

7. The detailed objectives of the project are: • Provide membership support to new CO2NET member organisations from EU new Member States and Associated Candidate Countries by covering their annual membership fees and travel costs to the CO2NET Annual Seminars and enable them active participation in networking activities • Co-organise one of the CO2NET Annual Seminars and organise 2 regional workshops in new Member States and/or Associated Candidate Countries • Disseminate knowledge and increase awareness of CO2 capture and storage technologies in new Member States and Associated Candidate Countries • Establish links among CCS stakeholders in new Member States and Associated Candidate Countries and between them and their partners in other EU countries using the existing networks like CO2NET and ENeRG (European Network for Research in Geo-Energy) as well as links with the newly established Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants

8. Participants from Institute of Geogy, TUT • A. Shogenova (coordination, data presentation, publication and reporting) • K. Shogenov • J. Ivask (WEB-master) • R.Vaher, A. Teedumäe (interpreters) • A. Raukas – information dissemination in government and mass-media

9. CO2NET Lectures on Carbon Capture and Storage • Climate Change, Sustainability and CCS • CO2 sources and capture • Storage, risk assessment and monitoring • Economics • Legal aspects and public acceptance Prepared by Utrecht Centre for Energy research

10. Sustainable development • People (Social dimension) • Profit (Economic dimension) • Planet (Ecological dimension) “a development that fulfills the needs of the present generation without endangering the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (“Our Common Future”, 1987) Dimensions of ‘sustainable development’

11. “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” source: IPCC, Working Group I

12. Rule of thumb Warming rate 1°C / century corresponds to: • ± 20 cm sea level rise • ± 100 km shift of climate zone / century • ± 150 m upward shift alpine climate zone/century

13. Alpine glacier in 1900 Same place present

14. International agreements preventing "dangerous" human interference with the climate system. (UNFCCC, 1992) First step Kyoto: binding targets for industrialised world. (EU -8%, VS -7%, Japan -6% in 2008-2012 compared to 1990)

15. Land use Energy (deforestation, ...) (fossil fuels) 6,3 Gt C /an (ou 23 Gt CO2 /an) 6,3 Gt C / year (or 23 Gt CO2 / year) 1,6 Gt C /an 1,6 Gt C / year Origin of anthropogenic CO2 emissions World annual emissions: 8 Gt C / year, or 30 Gt CO2 / year Prepared by Utrecht Centre for Energy research

16. CO2 fluxes between Earth and atmosphere (in billion tons of carbon per year)

17. Options that can meet demands • Energy conservation, energy efficiency • Renewable sources • Wind • Solar • Biomass • Tidal/wave • Geothermal • (New) fossil fuels with CCS • Nuclear

18. Why CO2 Capture and Storage? • Third option for CO2 emission reduction. • Enables continued use of fossil fuel resources • Potential for large CO2 storage/disposal capacity. • Technology is available. • Costs CCS are significant, but can be reduced. • Environmental impact can be limited; further research required.

19. Conclusion CCS is the third choice

20. CO2NET Lectures on Carbon Capture and Storage • Climate Change, Sustainability and CCS • CO2 sources and capture • Storage, risk assessment and monitoring • Economics • Legal aspects and public acceptance Prepared by Utrecht Centre for Energy research

21. Contents lecture 2:CO2 sources and capture • CO2 sources • CO2 capture/decarbonisation routes • Separation principles • CO2 capture technologies in power cycles + consequences on the power cycle • Comparison of different CO2 capture technologies • CO2 transport

22. CO2 emissions industry and power Total: 13.44 Gt/y in 2000. Source: IEA GHG 2002a

23. CO2 emissions by region Source: IEA GHG 2002a

24. CO2 source distribution Source: IEA GHG 2002b

25. CO2 sources and capture • CO2 capture targets: large, stationary plants. • Power production • Large sources, representing large share total emissions • Industrial processes • Large sources, some emitting pure CO2 • Synthetic fuel production (Fischer-Trops gasoline/diesel, Dimethyl ether (DME), methanol, ethanol) • Target sources in future?

26. Power plants • Pulverised coal plants (PC) • Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) • Integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) • Boilers fuelled with natural gas, oil, biomass and lignite • Future: fuel cells

27. CO2 capture routes: summary • Post-combustion capture: separation CO2-N2 • Pre-combustion capture: separation CO2-H2 • Oxyfuel combustion: separation O2-N2

28. Separation principles • Absorption: fluid dissolves or permeates into a liquid or solid. • Adsorption: attachment of fluid to a surface (solid or liquid). • Cryogenic (low-temperature distillation): separation based on the difference in boiling points • Membranes: separation which makes use of difference physical/chemical interaction with membrane (molecular weight, solubility)

29. Absorption versus adsorptionChemical versus physical

30. Physical adsorption • Van der Waals forces • Can be performed at high temperature • Adsorbents: zeolites, activated carbon and alumina • Regeneration (cyclic process): • Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) • Temperature Swing Adsorption (TSA) • Electrical Swing Adsorption (ESA) • Hybrids (PTSA)

31. Chemical adsorption • Covalent bonds • Adsorbents: metal oxides, hydrotalcites • Example: carbonation (>600°C) - calcination (1000°C) reaction CaO + CO2 CaCO3 • Regeneration (cyclic process): • Pressure Swing Adsorption • Temperature Swing Adsorption

32. Cryogenic separation: principles (1) • Distillation at low temperatures. Applied to separate CO2 from natural gas or O2 from N2 and Ar in air.

33. Membrane absorption Source: Feron, TNO-MEP

34. Combining capture routes and technologies: CO2 capture matrix Source: Feron, TNO-MEP

35. Summary: Post-combustion capture • Chemical absorption is currently most feasible technology • Technology is commercially available, although on a smaller scale than envisioned for power plants with CO2 capture (>500 MWe) • Energy penalty and additional costs are high with current solvents. R&D focus on process integration and solvent improvement. • CO2 capture between 80-90% • Power cycle itself is not strongly affected (heat integration, CO2 recycling) • Retrofit possibility

36. Summary: Pre-combustion capture • Chemical/physical absorption is currently most feasible technology • Experience in chemical industry (refineries, ammonia) • Energy penalty and additional costs physical absorption are lower in comparison to chemical absorption • CO2 capture between 80-90% • Need to develop turbines using hydrogen (rich) fuel • No retrofit possibility • Advanced concepts to decrease energy penalty/costs: • sorption enhanced WGS/reforming • membrane WGS/reforming

37. Oxyfuel combustion:Chemical looping combustion

38. Summary: Oxyfuel combustion (1) • Cryogenic air separation is currently most feasible technology • Experience in steel, aluminum and glass industry • Energy penalty and additional costs are comparable to post-combustion capture • Allows for 100% CO2 capture • NOx formation can be reduced • FGD in PC plants might be omitted provided that SO2 can be transported and co-stored with CO2

39. Summary: Oxyfuel combustion (2) • Boilers require adaptations (retrofit possible). R&D issues: combustion behaviour, heat transfer, fouling, slagging and corrosion. • Application in NGCC: new turbines need to be developed with CO2 as working fluid (no retrofit) • R&D focus on development of new oxygen separation technologies. Advanced concepts to decrease energy penalty/costs: • AZEP (separate combustion deploying oxygen membranes) • Chemical looping combustion (separate combustion deploying oxygen carriers).

40. Contents • CO2 sources • CO2 capture/decarbonisation routes • Separation principles • CO2 capture technologies in power cycles + consequences on the power cycle • Comparison of different CO2 capture technologies • CO2 transport

41. CO2 transport • Pipelines are most feasible for large-scale CO2 transport • Transport conditions: high-pressure (80-150 bar) to guarantee CO2 is in dense phase • Alternative: Tankers (similar to LNG/LPG) • Transport conditions: liquid (14 to 17 bar, -25 to -30°C) • Advantage: flexibility, avoidance of large investments • Disadvantage: high costs for liquefaction and need for buffer storage. This makes ships more attractive for larger distances.

42. Pipeline versus ship transport Source: IEA GHG, 2004

43. Pipeline optimisation • Small diameter: large pressure drop, increasing booster station costs (capital + electricity) • Large diameter: large pipeline investments • Optimum: minimise annual costs (sum of pipeline and booster station capital and O&M costs plus electricity costs for pumping). • Offshore: pipelines diameters and pressures are generally higher as booster stations are expensive

44. CO2 quality specifications • USA: > 95 mol% CO2 • Water content should be reduced to very low concentrations due to formation of carbonic acid causing corrosion • Concentration of H2S, O2 must be reduced to ppm level • N2 is allowed up to a few %

45. CO2 transport costs Source: Damen, UU

46. Risks pipeline transport • Major risk: pipeline rupture. CO2 leakage can be reduced by decreasing distance between safety valves. • CO2 is not explosive or inflammable like natural gas • In contrast to natural gas, which is dispersed quickly into the air, CO2 is denser than air and might accumulate in depressions or cellars • High concentrations CO2 might have negative impacts on humans (asphyxiation) and ecosystems. Above concentrations of 25-30%, CO2 is lethal.

47. Safety record pipelines • Industrial experience in USA: 3100 km CO2 pipelines (for enhanced oil recovery) with capacity of 45 Mt/yr • Accident record for CO2 pipelines in the USA shows 10 accidents between 1990 and 2001 without any injuries or fatalities. This corresponds to 3.2.10-4 incidents per km*year • Incident frequency of pipelines transmitting natural gas and hazardous liquids in this period is 1.7.10-4 and 8.2.10-4, respectively, with 94 fatalities and 466 injuries Conclusion: CO2 transport is relatively safe.

48. CO2NET Lectures on Carbon Capture and Storage • Climate Change, Sustainability and CCS • CO2 sources and capture • Storage, risk assessment and monitoring • Economics • Legal aspects and public acceptance Prepared by Utrecht Centre for Energy research

49. Examples of storage projects 2. Storage: examples • Sleipner, North Sea (saline reservoir) • In-Salah, Algeria (gas reservoir) • K12B, North Sea (gas reservoir) • Weyburn, Canada (oil reservoir) • Enhanced Coal Bed Methane projects • Alisson (New Mexico) • Recopol (Poland)

50. Geological storage for CO2