The IEA Greenhouse gas R&D programme is formed under an agreement framed by the International Energy Agency in Paris. There are nearly 40 such agreements, which used to be called Implementing Agreements. The term Implementing Agreement caused a lot of confusion and what it stood for was difficult to communicate especially to non-native English speakers. So the IEA in its wisdom changed the name of these agreements to Technology Collaboration partnerships, or TCPs for short. At the second gathering of all TCPs held this week in Paris, there was universal approval for the renaming.
So, we are the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme TCP, and what a Technology Collaboration Programme does is easy to communicate to prospective members. So progress has been made.
However, when I think of TCP I recall vividly from my youth that it was a particularly smelly antiseptic that was dosed liberally by both parents on my scratches and bruises. I was also required to gargle the liquid version for a sore throat. Not pleasant I can assure you.
I also note that when you goggle TCP, it tells me that TCP or Transmission Control Protocol is a standard that defines how to establish and maintain a network conversation via which application programs can exchange data. TCP works with the Internet Protocol (IP), which defines how computers send packets of data to each other.
So there you have it TCP is either the abbreviation for:
- A Technology Collaboration Programme
- A Transmission Control Protocol
So, let's hope the next person that asks me to tell what a TCP is/was never a computer programmer or was from a region that TCP was never exported to.
It is the 39th meeting of the London Convention and the 12th meeting of the London Protocol this week, the global treaties that protect the marine environment. The detailed work on transboundary CCS was completed in 2012 (see IEAGHG 2013-IP26 and 2014-IP19) but outstanding is the ratification of the 2009 amendment for CO2 export which would remove a barrier to transboundary CO2 storage projects offshore. Whilst the 2009 export amendment was adopted in 2009, two thirds of the 49 Parties to the London Protocol need to ratify the amendment for it to come into force (ie 32). So in terms of ratification progress, new at this meeting was the announcement that Iran and Finland had ratified. Previously, Norway, UK and Netherlands had ratified, but no other countries in recent years. So it is welcome that there is progress, but still very slow towards it coming into force.
IEAGHG gave an update on activities relating to offshore CCS, and Norway gave an update on the progress with developments towards a full-scale industrial CCS project, which would have the potential to receive CO2 from industrial projects across Europe and so would benefit from the export amendment coming into force.
The International CCS Knowledge Centre held its first Global CCS Symposium with a theme of “Advancing a Path Forward”, supporting the goal of the Centre to advance CCS globally. Some 160 attendees from 11 countries participated, including from China, Mexico, Indonesia, Bangladesh, South Africa, and from India by video, as well as Norway, Australia, UK, and from Asian Development Bank and World Bank.
The symposium brought together coverage of technical aspects in capture and storage, application in power and industrial sources, economics, policy aspects, climate-need aspects, CCS in the Paris Agreement, and perspectives from developing countries including much from China, and also Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh and India.
There was a common recognition in the need and challenges in going from the million tonnes scale now to the gigatonne scale. Mike Marsh CEO of SaskPower gave an update on Boundary Dam CCS Project (BD3). David Greeson of NRG gave an update on the Petra Nova project. Brent Jacobs and Corwyn Bruce provided updates and learnings from BD3 operational experience, for example the use of activated carbon to stop foaming of the amine, and the benefits of testing capture systems in flexible operation load-following conditions, and differences to Petra Nova in construction materials for the absorber. Experiences from Shell’s Quest were also shared. Mona Molnvik of SINTEF gave an update on Norwegian developments, including the news that Shell and Total were joining Statoil in development of the Smeaheia storage site. ADB described their CCS technical assistance projects, which are to be extended from China and Indonesia to India, Vietnam, Kazakhstan and Bangladesh, including an interest in capture-ready regulations (for which IEAGHG has its 2007 report).
The Saskachewan Minister for Environment the Honourable Dustin Duncan spoke and described CCS as a “Saskachewan success”. Several media attended, interviewed and reported on the event.
IEAGHG was involved in moderating an ‘armchair dialog’ on “CCS: Essential Now!”, drawing upon IEA ETP 2017, IPCC and personal experiences and views of the panel.
The presentations will be made available by the Knowledge Centre. The symposium was followed by a visit to Boundary Dam, Aquistore and CCTF. Overall there was an air of positivity in the symposium, from the sharing of learnings from the large-scale operational projects with an international audience, including with some new countries.
Image of the ADB Delegation
Mission Innovation (MI) is an international initiative seeking to double each government’s investments in clean energy research and development over the next five years, with the goal of accelerating the pace of technology innovation to meet economic competitiveness, environmental, and energy security demands. It is estimated that the clean energy baseline doubling would make available an additional $25 to $35 billion in clean energy R&D, on top of a business-as-usual baseline investment of about $75 billion over 5 years. New investment will be focused on transformational clean energy technology innovations that can be scaled to varying economic and energy market conditions. Mission Innovation consists of the following Innovation Challenges (ICs):
- Smart Grids
- Off-Grid Access to Electricity
- Carbon Capture
- Sustainable Biofuels
- Converting Sunlight
- Clean Energy Materials
- Affordable Heating & Cooling of Buildings
The goal of the Carbon Capture IC, which is led by the USA and Saudi Arabia, is to identify Priority Research Directions (PRDs) that will lead to breakthrough technologies. This workshop covers three major themes centred on carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS). The workshop focuses on identifying breakthrough low technology readiness level (TRL) research directions, i.e. TRLs 1-3/4, that are needed to achieve long-term technologies for CCUS.
The product of the workshop is a report that will be issued. The report has two high level purposes:
- Inspire the global research community to develop breakthrough research concepts.
- Convince the general readership, including governmental policy and funding decision makers, that these research directions are critical to meeting future global energy needs.
Some 240 experts from 22 countries attended the workshop in Houston. Work was carried out in teams in the following focus areas:
- CO2 capture
- Sorbents and looping systems
- Combustion and other technologies
- CO2 utilization
- Thermochemical conversion and hydrogenation of CO2
- Electrochemical and photochemical conversion of CO2
- CO2 conversion to solid carbonates
- Biological conversion of CO2
- CO2 storage
- Injectivity and capacity
- Monitoring, verification and performance metrics
- Forecasting and managing induced seismicity
- Well diagnostics
Crosscut was not broken down into panels but followed the developments in the other panels and produced nine PRDs itself, providing some reality-tests at the systems level for the other topics.
A total of 33 PRDs were identified and described by the teams. These will be written up into the final report.
At the workshop, IEAGHG input directly to the “Crosscut” and ”CO2 storage: Monitoring, verification and performance metrics” panels. We look forward to seeing and using the results of the workshop.
Tim Dixon and Jasmin Kemper
As part of the Mission Innovation CCUS workshop in Houston, we visited the Net Power project at La Porte. This is a pilot-scale demonstration of a novel direct-fired oxy-fired supercritical-CO2 gas turbine based on the Allam Cycle. In fact Rodney Allam himself was present and co-hosted the visit with Bill Brown the CEO of Net Power. The partners in this project are 8 Rivers, Exelon, and CB&I. We learned that the combustion chamber is scaled at 50 MWth, and the turbine at 200 MWth and it is a first-of-a-kind by Toshiba. The inputs will be mostly CO2, some O2 and a small amount of CH4. A significant feature is the recycling of heat and CO2, and the production of water (when air-cooled), N2, Argon and CO2. The result is hoped to be an economical gas turbine with low cost electricity and a high-pressure supercritical CO2 stream output ready for pipeline transmission. The pilot project is at an advanced stage of construction. The expectation is testing of the combustion chamber in Q4 2017, and full operation in Q1 2018 with grid connection. The O2 and CO2 is supplied by Air Liquide nearby. The next phase will then be a 500MWth scale up of the turbine, and no scale up required for the combustors, and engineering design is underway. If successful, the technology offers a number of advantages over conventional plant: inherent CO2 capture, no NOx emissions, smaller physical footprint and low water usage. We will watch the testing developments later this year with great interest and wish them good luck. Many thanks for an interesting visit.
The Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Program (RCSP) in the USA has been engaged in its third phase of operation since 2008. This phase has involved large scale (0.25 to 1 Mt/y) injection of CO2 into six geological formations across North America since 2013. The DOE, through the National Energy Technologies Laboratory (NETL), manages the RCSP Initiative. The NETL required a fourth independent peer review of the Initiative in 2017. Three previous independent peer reviews, by international experts, were completed in 2008, 2011 and 2013.
The 2017 international independent expert review of the RCSP had the following aims:
- To follow up progress in addressing the recommendations of the third review in 2013, both in terms of the overall RCSP and individual regional partnerships and their Phase III projects;
- To assess the progress on the individual Phase III projects (7) and consider whether the proposed technical work program for each project has achieved its goals and those of the overall RCSP. Each project was expected to respond to the recommendations made in the previous review in 2013 and whether any subsequent modifications to project plans had achieved their desired effect;
- To assess results and key findings from the Phase III tests across the RCSP;
- To assess the overall technical program of the RCSP, address the synergies between the 7 Phase III projects and how they complement each other and how collectively they can provide a technical basis for future commercial scale projects in the USA;
- To assess how the RCSP compares, complements and contrasts with similar projects underway worldwide and how the information from these projects can help build an international knowledge base on CO2 capture and storage.
The review meeting was held in Pittsburgh, USA in January 2017. Each partnership presented a summary of their project’s progress and key findings since the inception of Phase III. The panel consisted of eight international experts. Each RCSP team outlined the technical and non-technical scope of its project and presented interim results. The panel discussed the merits and challenges of each project in view of objectives and goals and then made a series of recommendations to improve and enhance each work program.
A publically available summary of this review is now available on the IEAGHG website: http://www.ieaghg.org/publications/technical-reports/129-publications/new-reports-list/827-2017-tr11
The 5th Cost Network Meeting took place in Imperial College London, chaired by John Gibbins, from UKCCSRC. With the presence of a varied scientific community, once again this workshop was full of valuable presentations.
The meeting was divided in two days, starting with a review on the UK studies and large CCS projects. From those sessions, it was interesting to see the techno-economic assessment of emerging technologies, presented by Amec Foster Wheleer. During their presentation, we saw promising results based on a decrease of the energy penalty on new systems compared to traditional CCS. The large projects were represented by Petranova and Quest plants. The day continued with the session focused on the cost of emerging processes, where NET Power and the Membrane-based technology were presented, and concluded with CCS in Energy-Economic models, presented by University College Cork and Oxford University.
The second day started with the intervention of Clara Heuberger, from Imperial College London, who presented the role of CCS within the UK electricity system. Following this presentation, Andy Boston, from Red Vector, showed the results on the Australian case. As main conclusions from both speakers, we saw that flexibility is essential to assess the integration of CCS technologies within a techno-economic framework. As example, in Australia, different conditions based on locations are identified, so the integration of decarbonising technologies must be adapted accordingly. Likewise, as we saw in past events, CCS should be part of a synergy of technologies, which would include renewable energy amongst other strategies. Inflexible grids would struggle in the future and reliable low emissions electricity comes at a cost. In this scenario, deeper decarbonisation levels can be achieved using CCS.
The last section of the cost network meeting was compound by three parallel workshop sessions, where the attendees were divided in three groups based on their interests. I was lucky to be part of the session “Learnings from demonstration projects: what will be the next plant cost? ”, chaired by Jeff Hoffmann, from USDOE NETL. In this session, interesting questions on the current CCS demonstration scenario were discussed: Firstly, the discussion started with the debate on the CCS status, currently based on FOAK (first of a kind) plants or large-demonstration projects. Additionally, while we see over-estimation of costs in those running plants to increase the trustworthiness on the carbon capture system, stakeholders consider that the cost will be reduced by 20-30% on the next constructions through a more precise design. Moreover, not only costs, but lessons from those projects are both technical and economically beneficial. In consequence, the strategy for the next generation of plants can take two pathways: First, going ahead to construct the SOAK (second of a kind) plant; or second, improve the systems at lab/plant scale and wait longer to scale it up. Nevertheless, IP issues will play an important role in CCS costs. While learnings can be extracted from projects running, still that could impact on the next plants costs.
The two days of the cost network workshop were charged of open discussions on methodologies to assess CCS costs and attendees showed high interest in continuing with those sessions. We look forward to attend the next one.
The high temperature solid looping cycles (HTSLC) network meeting covers technology developments in fields where a solid material is cycled between multiple reactors at elevated temperatures. The scope of the IEAGHG HTSLC Network is to discuss recent progress in solids looping cycles such as calcium looping and sorption enhanced reforming for selective CO2 transport and chemical looping combustion and reforming with selective oxygen transport by the solids. It brings together well-known technologies used in Fluid Catalytic Cracking, Circulating Fluidized Beds and Combined Cycles, in new ways, to increase efficiencies and provide opportunities to decrease the carbon-footprint of energy intensive processes.
IEAGHG’s 7th HTSLCN Meeting took place 4th – 5th September in Luleå, Sweden. 50 delegates attended the meeting, which was hosted by Swerea MEFOS in the Kulturens Hus in the town centre.
The first day started off with a welcome from the organisers IEAGHG and Swerea MEFOS and a keynote presentation from Matteo Romano (Politecnico Di Milano) on the application of high temperature sorbents in industrial and power plants. The following technical sessions covered calcium looping modelling and testing, chemical looping fundamentals and economics and environmental impacts of both technologies in detail. After a short panel discussion summarising the main conclusions of the first day, delegates enjoyed a delicious dinner. All while taken in the stunning sunset over the Luleå archipelago and listening to a couple of Anders Lyngfelt’s (Chalmers University) famous live songs on climate change and chemical looping.
The second day started similar to the first one with a keynote presentation. Paul Cobden (ECN) briefed everyone about the STEPWISE project, which aims at demonstrating sorption enhanced water gas shift technology for CO2 reduction in the iron and steel industry. Valuable information for the site visit in the afternoon but more on this later. Participants again split up to attend technical sessions on either sorption enhanced reforming fundamentals and testing, as well as chemical looping modelling and testing. Afterwards, everyone assembled for the final session on the application of biomass to solid looping technologies, which was identified as one of the hot topics of the meeting, next to flexibility, as it could enable achieving net negative emissions. The meeting was concluded with another short panel discussion and a presentation by Eva Sundin, CEO of Swerea MEFOS, giving an overview about the company’s activities and a safety briefing for the tour. Participants then boarded a bus bringing us to the site of SSAB’s steel plant, where the STEPWISE demonstration plant is located. After a short reception with refreshments, the STEPWISE plant was officially opened, the ribbon cut and delegates were given a tour around the facilities, including the control room, SEWGS column and compressor station.
Concluding from the panel discussions and technical sessions, it was noted that solid looping technologies now urgently need to move forward in term of scale. Especially since the progress appears to have stalled during the last 2 years with no new large pilot or demonstration plant having been announced. However, this development is not exclusively concerning solid looping technologies but rather all CCS technologies, as requests for technical details and costs have driven some researchers/engineer back to the lab. Negative emission through solid looping with biomass and flexible operation have been identified as the hot topics of this meeting. It is important that the HTSLCN community has started work on these topics. The forthcoming IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C will hopefully help to regain momentum for CCS technologies. Next to biomass, sorption enhanced reforming technologies appear as a promising near-term option to party replace conventional H2 production. Thus, opportunities for solid looping currently seem to be in the industrial sectors, rather than in the primarily targeted power sector.
IPIECA is the global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues. They held a workshop on CCS on the 12th September at BP in London, bringing in a range of stakeholders to identity the key roles and actions to speed up CCS. Sessions covered costs and technical issues, policies and public issues, regional perspectives, business models, and the role for IPIECA. It was well attended, with many oil and gas company representatives as you would expect, and others from organisations such as US DOE, MIT, Oxford University, CCSA, IEA, IEAGHG, The International CCS Knowledge Centre and GCCSI.
In the many interesting presentations, responses and discussions, one to note in the business models session was from NRG on their Petra Nova project which became operational earlier this year. This large-scale CCS project on a coal power station has reached 800,000 tonnes captured and sent to use and storage in CO2-EOR. I was struck by what appears to be a more complex business structure compared to other CCS projects, with multiple companies and joint-ventures involved, including the export credit agency of Japan and a JV company set up by NRG and Hilcorp to run the pipeline and EOR aspects.
Also to note was the presentation by Myles Allen of Oxford University, highlighting that carbon price alone is very unlikely to stimulate CCS deployment, even with the modellers’ forecasts of higher prices, prices which also seem unlikely in the medium term, and so instead he was proposing some form of mandatory CCS mechanism.
IEAGHG was asked to respond on costs and technical issues, and made points on the need for large-scale demonstrations to reduce costs for subsequent projects by learning-by-doing and sharing experiences, the need to progress storage assessments, the refining of MMV strategies at larger injection projects, the challenges facing BioCCS, and the opportunities with offshore CCS and with CCS’s role in flexible power generation.
So an interesting meeting, running the day before the IEAGHG Costs Network meeting which is also in London (Imperial College), which helped those attendees who were attending both.
IEAGHG organised the fourth Post Combustion Capture Conference (PCCC4) in Birmingham, Alabama, supported by NCCC. The event attracted 110 attendees from 16 countries and included two visits to full-scale Carbon Capture facilities, the NCCC and Kemper sites.
PCCC-4 opened with a visit to the NCCC facilities, where we were lucky to see the membrane-based post-combustion capture technology based on the new PI-2 material (presented recently in the 2017 NETL CO2 Capture Review meeting, see http://ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Information_Papers/2017-IP51.pdf), chemical absorption system (now testing systems developed in collaboration with University of Texas at Austin (UTA)) and pre-combustion process.
The three days of PCCC4 presentations opened with plenary sessions, which included talks on the NCCC and Kemper demonstration projects, CCS in China and USA, followed by updates from the technologies tested by UTA. Moreover, a different policies perspective, given by Clear Path, completed the overview of the global CCS status.
Approximately 45 technical presentations included international research on 2nd - 3rd generation capture systems, novel solvents, modelling, industrial emissions, environmental impacts, pilot and large scale projects. On Tuesday, I was lucky to chair two fascinating sessions on last advances on amine solvents and industrial emissions. Firstly, we had the opportunity to see the last progresses on two research lines on hybrid amine solvents. We saw previous updates in TCCS-9 (see http://ieaghg.org/publications/blog/119-meetings-and-conferences/796-tccs-9) and GHGT-13: first, containing organic compounds and, secondly, including imidazoles, explained by UTA and NTNU respectively. In that case, recent kinetic results contributed to the further evaluation of those systems. Two presentations, given by Trimeric Corporation and UTA, showed the NO2 removal with Aqueous Sulfite process at two scales, including pilot testing at NCCC. Updates on cyclic oxidation piperazine and its avoidance were also given by Paul Nielsen, from UTA. Apart from amine solutions, biphasic solvents are lately emerging due to several advantages they might offer, as reduction of stripper size. We saw different approaches, based on liquid-liquid solvents (Ilinois State Geological Survey), based on precipitating systems (Lund University) and using catalysts. Still, the debate on high viscosity of the rich phase must be considered and research on the impact of that on the techno-economic analysis is still ongoing.
Through the industrial emissions session, we saw a good mixture of technologies. Following the presentation in GHGT-13 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610217319598), ETH Zurich continued their research on the chilled-ammonia process in the context of the CEMCAP project (see http://ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Publications/Information_Papers/2017-IP33.pdf), where we observed great interest from the audience. The results from the Tomakomai demonstration project in Japan were engaging, where we heard about social perception and government acceptance. As highlight, the discussion on the difference between the storage capacity and injection limitation due to regulations gave an additional realistic point of view. It is interesting to highlight the talk given by Hajime Kimura, from Mizuho Information & Research Institute, showing the work on the creation of guidelines on environmental risks of CCS systems in Japan. Also UK representatives offered some contributions for the next steps on risks guidance.
The session on 2nd-3rd generation systems included new configurations for membrane systems, as the two-layer structure with nanoparticles presented by Shinshu University. Through scaling-up, demonstration projects presented in this event included the technologies tested at NCCC, TCM, PICA Plant, University of Kentucky and Niederaussem.
PCCC4 closed with the visit to the Kemper site, based in Mississippi. We had the opportunity to see the pre-combustion facilities, including the fluidised bed gasifier and the ash separator column. Moreover, Richar Exposito explained rock formation possibilities we can find in storage sites and different strategies on CO2 injection campaigns.
In conclusion, PCCC4 covered a wide range of emerging systems at advanced stage of development. Full-scale projects proved that CCS technologies are technically feasible but still some concerns on price, regulations and environment must be addressed. Next generation of post-combustion capture technologies can include any of the systems exhibited during this event and IEAGHG will continue looking at those closely.