Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Carbon capture from Waste-to-Energy in Oslo
Johnny Stuen
Fortum Oslo Varme AS
2
Fortum Oslo Varme, the new joint venture
Oslo 2019
• Waste; a problem and a resource
• Huge health, climate and environmental challenge
• Almost 1,3 bill. tons of household waste generated
yearly. and on the increase*
• Energy recovery best solution for sorted waste
• Carbon Capture gives great global transfer value
Environment and climate goals
95 % GHG reduction within 2030 50 % GHG reduction within 2020
Europe’s Environmental Capital
60 % NOx-reduction within 2022
Car free city centre
Phase out fossil energy for heating purposes
CCS from Waste to Energy
5
• Limitation of global warming to well below 2°C
• The consequences of climate change are dramatic
• Carbon capture and storage: key technology
PARIS AGREEMENT
• Extensive source sorting• Two optical sorting plants • One biogas plant
• District heating
• Sorptive cooling
• Two Waste to Energy plants
• Heat pumps, wood pellets, bio-oil. Etc.
Oslo’s cycle based waste system
6
7
Fortum Oslo Varme Klemetsrudanlegget
• Norway’s largest WtE-plant
• Capacity: 350 000 (405 000) t./year, 45 t./h
• Norwegian and international residual waste
• Direct incineration of special waste
• El production: 150 GWh (est. 2017)
• Heat production: 690 GWh (2017)
• Large re-investments. 2014-17
8
Residual products after incineration
Landfill hazardous waste Metal recovery + landfill
Fly ash Flue gas Bottom ash
Establishing carbon capture opens new possibilities for reducing emissions –
gains both the climate and the local environment
The complete Norwegian project
9
Fortum Oslo Varme, Klemetsrud
Klemetsrud – Carbon capture
10
◦ Design capacity after concept phase:
◦ A future maximum capacity of 460 200 ton CO2 per year with 90% capture ~ 414 200 ton CO2
per year
◦ This equals around 405.000 tons of waste per year.
• Projecting CCS since 2014
• Actual testing, 9 months, shows stable CO2 capture (90%).
• Good results from similar testing on other WtE (Japan/Nederland).
• Strong similarities with flue gas from coal, but cleaner
– transfer of experience
• Removes both fossil and biological CO2
– (58 % bio CCS)
• Builds local and specific competence
– global transfer value
• “Green jobs”
• About 400’ tons CO2 yearly from FOV KEA
– Potential app. 600’ tons
• Potentially 150’ tons CO2 from Haraldrud
11
Carbon capture at Fortum Oslo Varme Klemetsrudanlegget
Mature capture technology
The business is already operating «similar» technologies
Carbon capture is one of the evident paths for development in an already existing high standard of flue gas
cleaning with standard, known components.
Typical amine plant Chilled ammonia plant (CAP)
Other, more compact and cheaper technologies are underdevelopment, but will not be ready in some years yet
13
Alternative 7 are prioritized,
pending on soil/rock quality.
Pipeline is base concept
• Intermediate storage size
Harbor to be evaluated early
FEED (also pending Gassnova
to freeze CO2 carrier arrival
frequency)
• Gas phase CO2 in pipe
pressure and temp to be
optimized
• Liquefaction in harbor
Truck with liquefaction at
Klemetsrud are the fallback
option.
Pipeline are an optional solution
Potential for CCS in WtE - Norway
14
- new plants and new capacity added since the picture
above was created
In 2015, 3.73 mill. tons was
processed as Waste to Energy. Of
this was approximately 1.7 million
tons processed in Norway while the
rest was exported. The WtE of 3.73
mill tons of waste are equivalent to
a discharge of approximately 4.25
million. tons of carbon dioxide,
calculated as the emissions from
the combustion of the residual
waste from the household and
industry. The amount is the total
CO2, i.e. both biological and fossil
CO2, and therefore provides a
potential for the capture of
approximately 3.8 million. tons of
CO2 annually (90% capture
degree).
Potential for CCS in Europa
Yearly:• 90 mill. tons WtE
• 98 mill. tons landfilled
Huge
emissions
of CO2
450WtE
1ton waste
1ton CO2
=Huge, and increasing, interest for CCS in WtE. European Waste management supports the Klemetsrud project.
15
Actual CCS activity and interest, national and international WtE
16
I.e: Saga City WtE in Japan have piloted CCS in WtE and operates a 10 tons/day
CCU facility
CCS in WtE has been tested
in pilot scale in Japan,
Netherlands and Norway.
Larger plants are under
planning.
The technology works – the
WtE industry are on the
move.
New suppliers engaged –
new technology emerging.
International cooperation has
already been established.
Sum potential > 5 mill. tons
17
Fortum has a significant in-house potential
* Heat production incl. Fortum’s associated company Fortum Värme; heat production 8.3 TWh (capacity 3,971 MW).
Note: Fortum’s total heat production 36 TWh in 2016
Coal 23%
Peat 2%
Natural gas 6%
Waste 21%Heat pumps, electricity 17%
Biomass 29%
Oil 2%
(Production capacity 7,789 MW*)
Fortum’s European heat production 15.4 TWh* in 2016
Klaipėda
Hässelby
Jelgava
Joensuu
Järvenpää
Espoo
Częstochowa
Zabrze
Riihimäki
Kumla
Nyborg
Tartu
Naantali
Pärnu
Brista
Bytom
Klemetsrud
Plock
Wroclaw
VärtanHögdalen
Pärnu
Woodchips
Tartu
Woodchips, peat
Jelgava
Woodchips
Associated companies
Waste-CHPMultifuel-CHPBio-CHP Coal/gas-CHP
Joensuu
Woodchips, peat +
pyrolysis plant
JärvenpääWoodchips,
horse manure &SRF
Hässelby
Wood pellets
Värtan KVV8,
Brista 1
Woodchips
Czestochowa
Coal, woodchips
ZabrzeNew unit ready 2018:
coal, waste
NaantaliNew unit ready 2017:
coal, woodchips
RiihimäkiHazardous waste MSW+
ICW, material recovery
Kumla
Hazardous waste
ICW + MSW
Nyborg
Hazardous waste
KlaipėdaMSW, RDF,
woodchips
Fortum Oslo
Varme
MSW, ICW, RDF
Högdalen
MSW, ICW, RDF
Espoo
Coal, natural gas
Bytom
Coal
Värtan, old units
Coal, oil
Brista 2 MSW, ICW, RDF
Co-owned and consolidated
companies
= hazardous waste
CHP plant locations today
District heat supply/networks
w/o own production
Associated companies’ CHP plants
Fortum Oslo Varme = Fortums CCS competence center
- The CCS project in Klemetsrud leads the way
1. Reduced landfilling of waste prevents
methane emissions (25 x CO2)
2. Recycled waste saves CO2 by replacing new
raw materials
3. Energy recovery of residual waste replaces
fossil heat sources
4. CO2 can be captured post combustion
5. Carbon criteria in tenders will stimulate the
market for both MRF and WtE with CCS
6. Bio-CCS; climate positive!
18
Reduced climate emissions throughout the value chain
Benefits from a CCS project, i.e:
• Demonstrate that CCS is a safe and effective
climate measure.
• Reduce cost for ‘next in kind’ projects through
lessons learned and common use of
infrastructure
• Facilitate business development
• Reduce CO2 emissions
19
Assessment of benefits (for the State)
Challenges CCS
• Expensive ‘first of a kind’ plant
• Financing (‘polluter pays principle’)
• Immature supplier-market
• Immature CO2-market
• Complete value chain must be developed – and work
• Build and operate the plant so that both the global climate
and the local environment and people benefits
• Carbon capture is possible and necessary!
• Great potential in the waste sector
• Carbon capture from waste incineration fits
well in a circular economy
• Creates new industry, new jobs and utilizes
national resources in a new way.
21
Conclusion
