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