Introducing the IChemE Energy Centre @EnergyIChemE - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Introducing the IChemE Energy Centre @EnergyIChemE www.icheme.org/energycentre 27 July 2016 Slide 1

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 2

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 3

IChemE Energy Centre Board Executive officers Board members  Chair: Allyson Black, Caltex Refineries   Professor Stefaan Simons, Brunel Toby Chancellor-Weale, KBR University London  Antonio Della Pelle, Enerdata Vice-Chairs:  Dr Gareth Forde, All Energy Pty  Professor Richard Darton, University of  Professor Sanette Marx, North-West Oxford University  Professor Geoff Maitland, Imperial  Professor Jim Petrie, University of College London Sydney Secretary:  Ben Salisbury, Horizon Nuclear Power  Dr Niall Mac Dowell, Imperial College  Johan Samad, Petrofac Energy London Developments Leadership Forum Coordinator:  Paul Smith, SSE  Dr Rachael Hall, GE Power  Shane Watson, Maersk Oil Qatar AS Slide 4

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 5

Read the paper - shared via webinar Slide 6

The Future of CCS CCS Forum 2016 #poweringCCS Niall Mac Dowell, Imperial College London Slide 7

Outcome of COP21, December, 2015 Slide 8 Fuss, S., et al. (2014). Betting on negative emissions. Nature Climate Change , 4 (10), 850 – 853

Four World Views Are fossil fuels hard to displace? NO YES NO A nuclear or Most people in the Is climate renewables world fuel industries and change an unmotivated by most of the public are urgent climate. here. matter? YES Environmentalists, To encourage CCS nuclear advocates one needs to be here. are often here. Slide 9 From: S. Socolow, Gordon CCS Conference, 2015

Slide 10

Slide 11 Jacard , M., “Sustainable Fossil Fuels”, 2006

Not having CCS is uniquely costly for 2 o C Slide 12

“what has happened in the last decade…and what should we do next?   Ali Abbas, University of Sydney Niall Mac Dowell, Imperial College London   André Bardow, RWTH Aachen University Iain Macdonald, Imperial College London   Nick Bevan, DECC Guido Magneschi, Global CCS Institute   Andy Boston, ERP Geoff Maitland, Imperial College London   Solomon Brown, University of Sheffield Michael Matuszewski, University of Pittsburgh   Kyra Sedransk Campbell, Imperial College London Theo Mitchell, CCSa   Andrew Cavanagh, Statoil Mona J. Mølnvik, SINTEF   Dominique Copin, Total Alissa Park, Columbia University   Benjamin Court, Global CCS Institute Camille Petit, Imperial College London   Ioannis Economou, Texas A&M University at Qatar Alfredo Ramos, PSE   Paul Fennell, Imperial College London Jeff Reimer, UC Berkeley   Greeshma Gadikota, Princeton University David Reiner, University of Cambridge   Jon Gibbins, UKCCSRC Tony Ripley, DECC   Jonas Helseth, Bellona Caroline Saunders, Foreign & Commonwealth Office   Howard Herzog, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Mark Sceats, Calix   Alexandra Howe, Institution of Chemical Engineers Nilay Shah, Imperial College London   Iftikhar Huq, Suncor Martin Trusler, Imperial College London   George Jackson, Imperial College London Jan van der Stel, Tata Steel   David Jones, BG Group Jennifer Wilcox, Stanford University   Jasmin Kemper, IEAGHG Rupert Wilmouth, Government Office for Science   Sam Krevor, Imperial College London Celia Yeung, EPSRC  Catherine Leroi, Total  Will Lochhead, DECC  Wilfried Maas, Shell Slide 13

Slide 14

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 15

Key conclusions and priorities 2. Development of a computational framework to rapidly screen new solvents and sorbents for CO 2 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 16

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/t CO2 . Industrial best practice is in the range of 2.3 GJ/t CO2 . Slide 17

Key conclusions and priorities 4. The point of CCS is climate change mitigation. This implies the permanent storage of CO 2 . The de-risking of CO 2 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 18

Key conclusions and priorities 5. CO 2 utilisation via Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is mature, and has the potential to provide a near-term, market-driven pull for the deployment of CO 2 transport infrastructure. EOR is not a panacea, and can lead to the net emission of CO 2 . There is evidence that EOR can displace other hydrocarbons, leading to “avoided CO 2 ” Slide 19

Key conclusions and priorities 6. The market for products derived from CO 2 will be very small relative to what is needed to be stored as part of climate change mitigation. To contribute to climate change mitigation, CO 2 needs to be stored “forever”. Delaying emission for ~ 50 years simply does not count from the perspective of the climate. Using CO 2 can have the effect of materially reducing the environmental footprint of existing chemical processes. Slide 20

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 21

Key conclusions and priorities 8. Decoupling the cost of power generation or industrial processes with CO 2 capture and the requisite CO 2 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 22

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 23

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 24

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 Slide 25