Nordic CCS Competence Centre The NORDICCS CCS Roadmap Marit J. Mazzetti Keynote TCCS7, Trondheim, Norway, 2013-06-05 Contributions by all NORDICCS WPs Marit.Mazzetti@sintef.no
NORDICCS Nordic CCS Competence Centre • Operating under the Nordic Top-level Research Initiative (TRI) Vision for NORDICCS Become a Center of Expertise on CCS by developing Joint Nordic Strategies to promote Widespread Implementation of CCS, and effectively Communicate the strategies to the Decision makers and the General public • Funded by Nordic Innovation (75%) and Partners (25%) • 16 Partners from research, industry and NGOs Duration: 5 years • • Total budget: 6.2 million Euro www.sintef.no/nordiccs
Opportunity: Nordic Synergies • Vast storage capacity off the coasts of Norway and Denmark & • Large emission sources in Sweden & Finland • Joint CCS projects could allow scale up • Reductions in cost due to economies of scale
Nordic Synergies - Biogenic emissions • Great biomass energy sources in Sweden and Finland • Potential for BECCS projects that can go carbon negative! CO 2 Emissions from Stationary Point Sources With emissions > 100 000 tonnes (2009)
Status of CCS 97% hydropower, 2 % from CCGT and 1% wind. CO 2 emissions mainly • from transportation(30%) offshore oil and gas production(29%), and industry (25%). Goal of carbon neutral by 2050. CCS important for CO 2 reduction in industry and gas fired power plants • Power supply from hydro (53%) and nuclear (40%) • Goal of carbon neutral by 2050. CCS assumed major share of the reductions from the industry sector starting at 2040 • Fossil and some wind. Target of 100% renewable energy by 2050 • CCS for EOR a possibility, new climate plan this year Power from fossil, bio, nuclear. Extensive industrial-scale use of • biomass. Goal 80 % reduction in GHG by 2050 • VTT Analysis suggests 18 Mt of CO 2 removed by CCS by 2050, BECCS, bio-refineries, steel mills, cement, pulp & paper • 85% Renewable energy: hydro and geothermal. Goal 50-70% red GHG by 2050 • Industry: Aluminium plants 40% of CO 2 2012 Numbers
Analysis of Nordic CCS Tonni: • Industrial production increases • Using current technology Inno: • Rapid Technology development • More Urbanization Includes CCS in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden . Source: International Energy Agency (2013), Nordic Energy Technology Perspectives, OECD/IEA, Paris CCS for CO2 removal Country Source Industry Power Total (Mt/year) Nordic International Energy Agency (2013), Nordic 7 8 15 ETP 2 DS Energy Technology Perspectives, OECD/IEA, Nordic International Energy Agency (2013), Nordic 12 8 20 ETP CNS Energy Technology Perspectives, OECD/IEA, VTT Green Energy, 2012;Includes BECCS in pulp Toni 9 25 34 and paper ind VTT Green Energy, 2012;Includes BECCS in pulp Inno 10 21 31 and paper ind Norway 3 19 22 Lavutslippsutvalget, 2006 VTT Green Energy, 2012;Includes BECCS in pulp Finland 14 4 18 and paper ind
CCS Implementation • Economy of Scale • Oil industry through EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) • Could be economical for the operator • CO 2 is excellent agent to enhance oil recovery • Sweetening: Purification of Norwegian export gas • Industries with high concentrations of CO 2 , operational close to 100% of the year • Steel • Cement • Pulp and paper • Fertilizer plants • Gas fired Power plants with CCS • Refinery emissions (processing and power plants)
Case 3: Skagerrak Industry Cluster Capture Sites: Esso Refinery, Norway • Norcem Cement plant, Norway • Preemraff Refinery, Sweden • World’s first CO 2 capture test facility in cement industry Norcem Brevik - Norway Borealis Chemical Plant, Sweden • Portland Cement, Denmark • Nordjyllands verket, Denmark • Transport: via ship Hub: Kårstø, Norway • Hirtshals, Denmark • – Location chosen closest to first capture site Storage : Utsira, Norway or Gassum , Skagerak
Case 6: Zero Emission Power Production Scope: Large scale power plant using Combined Cycle Gas Turbines w/CCS Economy of Scale: 2000 MW Plant • Five Combined Cycle Gas Turbines • CO 2 emissions: 5 Mt/annually for possible • use in EOR Capture: MEA post-combustion • 5 Mt CO2 /y, 5.6 Mt CO2 /y, 3.9/7.8 % CO2 , Location: Stavanger • Transport and Storage: Utsira via pipeline • Power End Use: • − Electrification − Export to Europe − Metals Industry, e.g. Aluminium − CO 2 End Use: EOR
Case 7: Sweetening The Deal Challenge: CCS Expensive, EOR possible solution • Prior EOR projects failed due to lack of steady supply of CO 2 Opportunity: Remove and store more of CO 2 present in Norway's Natural Gas Currently Exported to Europe Location: Close to Source & Sink • On shore, close to the source • New oil and gas fields at Utsira • Arctic or Northern Norway w/high CO 2 Steady CO 2 supply : • Currently export 100 B Sm 3 /annually at 2.5% • Economy of scale significant for volumes of CO 2 captured of up to 2-3 M tonnes/year
Cost of different NORDICCS Case Scenarios - N th of a kind (NOAK) Capture Technology Large Sweetening comb. Storage cost (€/t) cycles Skagerak Transport cost (€/t) cluster Capture cost (€/t)
How do we Realize Deployment? Economy of Scale & Continued R&D to Reduce Capture Costs • EOR storage to further reduce costs of Sweetening • • Several Successful CCS Offshore Storage Projects Initially, then Onshore • Changes to the European Carbon Market are Necessary for Industrial CCS • The current European carbon market is not proving to be effective: • Bio emissions should count • Incentives/legislation needed • Feed in Tariffs, Emission Performance Standards, CCS Certificates • Strengthening ETS (backloading……….) • Risk Distribution Necessary • Government will have to support the first implementations to reduce risk (CAPEX & OPEX) • Support for infrastructure development • Hubs for transport to storage site • Transport network for CO 2 in the Nordic region is too costly • Ship only option until scale is large enough to justify pipeline
Scenarios for Implementation
Conclusions from NORDICCS Roadmap • Nordic Countries as a group cannot reach CO 2 emission goals without CCS • Scenario 1: As is: Sleipner and Snøhvit: 1.7 M tonnes, Scenario 2: Mongstad: 0.5 - 1M tonnes • • Scenario 3: Large-scale sweetening, potentially w/ EOR • 2-3 projects by 2050: 5 M tonnes • Scenario 4: Industry and Power projects viable with incentives • Industry located within the Nordic "Skagerrak cluster": 3 M tonnes • large scale power plant w/CCS: 5 M tonnes • Bio CCS in Finland and Sweden closer to 2040: 5 M tonnes • Added Cost benefit from EOR • Added cost benefit from import of CO 2 from large European CCS projects by pipeline • Implementing Scenarios 2-4 allows storing 20 M tonnes CO 2 /year by CCS by 2050 and fulfil the CCS part of our climate goals!
Acknowledgements/Thank You/Questions • This work is supported by the NORDICCS Centre, performed under the Top-level Research Initiative CO 2 Capture and Storage program, and Nordic Innovation. • The authors acknowledge the following partners for their contributions: Statoil, Gassco, Norcem, Reykjavik Energy, CO 2 Technology Centre Mongstad, Vattenfall and the Top-level Research Initiative (Project number 11029) • NORDICCS Centre Contact Information: Dr. Nils A. Røkke, Vice President, SINTEF, Nils.A.Rokke@sintef.no
Recommend
More recommend
