Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UK CCS Research Centre
RAPID
Research and
Pathways to Impact Delivery
Phase 1 Handbook
July 2012
The UKCCSRC is supported by the
Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council as part of the
Research Councils UK Energy
Programme
2
Contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 3
1.1 RAPID – Research and Pathways to Impact Delivery .............. 3
1.2 Application Impact Tables ....................................................... 4
1.3 Scope of RAPID Phase I ............................................................ 5
2. Research Area Champions and RAPID Timetable ................................ 6
2.1 Research Area Champions ....................................................... 6
2.2 RAPID Timetable ...................................................................... 7
3. RAPID Application Impact Tables and Other RAPID Documents ......... 8
4. Further Work on RAPID ....................................................................... 71
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 The UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Centre ….… 72
Appendix 2: Research Area Summaries …………………………………………….. 75
Appendix 3: Overall Research Needs for CCS ……………………………………... 122
Appendix 4: CCS Research Grants ……………………………………………………… 140
3
1. Introduction
1.1 RAPID – Research and Pathways to Impact Delivery
The overall objective for RAPID is to help maximise the future impacts from CCS research,
undertaken by the UK CCS Research Centre (UKCCSRC - see Appendix 1) through successfully
addressing the questions in the table below.
Table 1.1
RAPID is not primarily about documenting impacts that have already occurred – the RCUK Research
Outcomes System (ROS)1 already does that – and because CCS is a new activity, with actual projects
mostly at early stages, applications for much of the research being undertaken are still being
developed.
This novel and developing nature of CCS does, however, raise two challenges that RAPID and the
new UK CCS Research Centre will address:
1. Making the best assessment of the future knowledge-related needs for CCS applications –
this will be done through Application Impact Tables (see next section)
2. Delivering the required knowledge in a useable form to the people who will need it and by
the time they will need it.
1 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2011/Pages/rcukros.aspx
4
1.2 Application Impact Tables
Application Impact Tables (AITs) are intended to summarise the knowledge required to implement
particular CCS applications.
The AITs presented in this report are first drafts. They will be updated as more time is available to
discuss requirements with CCS practitioners and as experience and understanding of CCS grows with
wider deployment.
Entries are also likely to be expanded, with a wider range of knowledge items and more details on
the items. Some applications are also likely to be covered by complementary documents describing
the application and discussing knowledge applications and challenges in more detail.
Current AIT headings are:
Application title The application (or related applications) that the AIT covers
General Area The application may be broken down into sub-areas
Knowledge Application Areas Individual knowledge inputs required to effect this application
Level of Understanding An estimate of how fully this knowledge is available to CCS
practitioners, shown as a numerical value where: 1,2,3 = Novel ;
4,5,6 = Intermediate ; 7,8,9 = Mature
Scale of deployment This has been used for General Areas and Knowledge Application
Areas in some applications with categories
I(dea)/L(aboratory)/P(rototype)/C(ommercial)
Impacts / outputs Notes of the fields (e.g. Capital Cost, Safety, Environment) in which
application of the knowledge may have a future impact
In addition research needs and priorities produced by the Advanced Power Generation Technology
Forum (APGTF)2 have been cross-referenced to the Knowledge Application Area entries using the
following headings:
Category Based on APGTF areas for research needs:
WS - whole systems
CO - capture overview
PC - post-combustion capture
PD - pre-combustion decarbonisation
OC - oxyfuel combustion
IC - industrial CCS
TR - transport
ST - storage
Description APGTF description preceded by the timescale:
S - short-term (5-10 years)
M - medium-term (7-15 years)
L - long-term (impact in 10-20 years)
Ranking H(igh) ; M(edium) ; L(ow)
2 APGTF, Cleaner Fossil Power Generation in the 21st Century – Maintaining a Leading Role
a technology strategy for fossil fuel carbon abatement technologies, Aug 2011, http://www.apgtf-uk.com
5
Some further notes on AIT table information are given overleaf.
Level of Knowledge
Level of Knowledge (LOK) is different from the scale and operating environment at which this aspect
of CCS has been deployed, as might be assessed in Technology Readiness Level (TRL)3. Of course, to
be accurately employed TRLs have to be applied to very tightly-specified types of technology. For
example, some manufacturers’ post-combustion systems are now being applied at advanced pilot or
commercial scale, but this has little bearing on the need for R&D for any troubleshooting and future
updates to these systems and even less relevance for other systems. The power industry has a long
history of both incremental development of its basic technologies and in-service modifications of all
types to existing equipment. Analogies with the aerospace industries in which TRLs originated
therefore have some limitations.
LOKs also have to reflect a possible range, depending on very specific details such as the
manufacturer, but in general knowledge is more generally applicable and transferable than TRL for a
particular engineered system.
LOK values in the tables are characterised as follows:
1,2,3 Novel, limited knowledge only
4,5,6 Intermediate, may be ready to build but if so expect learning by doing
7,8,9 Becoming mature, but still capable of improvement for 7 and 8
It does not automatically follow that lower LOKs have a higher priority for research, since this also
depends on how critical the Knowledge Application Area is and the benefits that better knowledge is
likely to confer.
1.3 Scope for RAPID Phase 1
RAPID Phase 1 is intended to support a call for research projects mainly supported from UKCCSRC
internal funds, with a tight timetable to get funding awards before the end of 2012.
The RAPID process will continue to support a Phase 2 Handbook also addressing knowledge delivery
activities and UKCCSRC strategy and will subsequently run to deliver further improvements
throughout the project.
Table 1.2
2. Research Area Champions and RAPID timetable
2.1 Research Area Champions
Research Area Champions, responsible for taking a leading role in RAPID work, are as
follows. Input from academic colleagues and industrial stakeholders is also gratefully
acknowledged.
It is worth noting, however, that since the DECC CCS Commercialisation Competition was
running over the same period as the current RAPID phase that a number of stakeholders
apologised for being too busy to take part.
3 e.g. http://esto.nasa.gov/files/TRL_definitions.pdf
6
2. Research Area Champions and RAPID timetable
2.1 Research Area Champions
Research Area Champions, responsible for taking a leading role in RAPID work, are listed
below. Input from academic colleagues and industrial stakeholders is also gratefully
acknowledged.
It is worth noting, however, that since the DECC CCS Commercialisation Competition was
running over the same period as the current RAPID phase, a number of stakeholders
apologised for being too busy to take part.
Table 2.1
Research Area Research Area Champion
CCS Systems Nilay Shah
Solvent Post-Combustion Jon Gibbins
Adsorption and Membranes Stefano Brandani
Precombustion Capture/Hydrogen Trevor Drage
Oxyfuel Mohamed Pourkashanian
High Temperature Looping Stuart Scott
Industrial Capture Paul Fennell
Transport Julia Race
Monitoring R&D Andy Chadwick
Reservoir Engineering Martin Blunt
Site Risk Assessment Jon Gluyas
Site Leasing and Regulation Sam Holloway
Storage Assessment Stuart Haszeldine
Ecosystems and Environmental Impact Jerry Blackford
Public Acceptability and Social Simon Shackley
Financing, Policy and Deployment David Reiner
CCS Construction Materials John Oakey
CO2 Properties Martin Trusler
7
2.2 RAPID timetable
The format and content of the current versions of the RAPID Application Impact Tables have been
developed over a number of meetings, as follows:
Table 2.2
Planned
Date
Actual
Date Notes
13 March 13 March BIS - Discussion of research impacts at APGTF meeting, London – to identify
industry contributors and to develop some of the fundamental concepts
2-3 April 2-3 April UCL - UKCCSC Network meeting and UKCCSRC announcement, introduction
to RAPID and preliminary discussions
wb 7 May 10 May Leeds - Meeting organised around 18 Research Areas – bottom-up
consideration of research
18 May Imperial – as above
wb 28 May 11 June Edinburgh - Meeting organised around applications – synergy and
commonality between pathways, range of impacts explored with
stakeholders
19 June Imperial – as above
25 June RAPID discussion at UKCCSR Early Career Researchers meeting, Leeds
25 June 2 July GeolSoc, London - Meeting focussing on RAPID results and Phase 1 Call
12-13 July 16 July IMechE, London - Final presentations and discussions (drafting team)
8
Capture Transport Storage
Post Pre Oxy
Interfaces + Interactions + Interoperability
Pipeline ShipHydro-
carbon Aquifer
Monitoring
Capacity assessment
Injection engineering
Regulation
Financial Environment
Public acceptance
Safety
Complete chains taking CO2 from source to secure geological storage
Industry
Low
carbon
energy
CO2
processing
Oxygen
production
Buffer
storage
Buoy
transfer
Policy
Capture Transport Storage
Post Pre Oxy
Interfaces + Interactions + Interoperability
Pipeline ShipHydro-
carbon Aquifer
Monitoring
Capacity assessment
Injection engineering
Regulation
Financial Environment
Public acceptance
Safety
Complete chains taking CO2 from source to secure geological storage
Industry
Low
carbon
energy
CO2
processing
Oxygen
production
Buffer
storage
Buoy
transfer
Policy
3. RAPID Application Impact Tables and other RAPID documents
Application Impact Tables have been
prepared for a number of areas, as
shown in Table 3.1, which largely cover
the range of applications shown in
Figure 3.1 below, taken from the
UKCCSRC proposal. These are shown
on the following pages.
Research Area Champions, in
conference with other stakeholders
where possible, have also prepared two
page summaries of research needed in
different areas and possible pathways
to delivery for missing impacts, shown
in Appendix 2.
Subsequently a number of Research
Area Champions have also assessed
overall research needs more widely in
single page summaries, attached as
Appendix 3.
A selection of mainly UK CCS research
grants is provided in Appendix 4.
Figure 3.1 CCS Impact Area Map based on factors influencing the deployment of CCS
Table 3.1 Application Impact Tables (and page)
CCS Systems 9
Solvent Post-Combustion Capture 11
Post-Combustion (Coal and Gas) Adsorption 13
Pre-Combustion Capture from Gasification 15
Pre-Combustion Adsorption + Membrane Capture 19
Oxyfuel Combustion Capture 21
High Temperature Looping Cycles 25
Cement 27
High Purity Sources 30
Iron and Steel 31
Refineries 35
Pipeline Transport 40
Shipping Transport 42
Storage 43
Storage Regulation and Licensing 53
Environmental Impact 56
Social Science/Public Perception 63
Economics and Finance 66
CO2 and Related Substance Properties 68
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
4. Further work on RAPID
RAPID will be extended over the coming months to cover all areas in Table 1.1.
• Application Impact Tables will be updated and extended through a series of specialist meetings
with practitioners and other stakeholders that will also address appropriate delivery routes for
CCS knowledge in different applications.
• The database of CCS research projects in Appendix 4 will be extended, partly with input from the
growing Centre membership and also taking into account new grants issues in the UK.
• UK CCS research requirements will be assessed for knowledge areas, based on a detailed
assessment of application knowledge requirements, ongoing research and delivery requirements
by knowledge users.
• UK 'hard' and 'soft' CCS knowledge-related capacity and infrastructure needs will be considered.
The outcome for the DECC CCS Commercialisation Competition, expected by the end of 2012, is
likely to have a significant influence on the direction that UK CCS research takes, partly through third
party research activities that are planned to take advantage of the opportunities that full scale CCS
projects can provide.
A similar process to RAPID has also been adopted by the EERA CCS JIP programme - further links with
this will be explored.
The next version of the RAPID Handbook will be re-issued and reviewed at the Centre meeting in
Spring 2013, with interim updates on the Centre web site (www.ukccsrc.ac.uk) in the meantime.
Updates in relevant areas may also be issued as appropriate in conjunction with future research
calls.
72
Appendix 1 The UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Centre
(Also see www.ukccsrc.ac.uk)
The UK CCS Research Centre (UKCCSRC) will be the virtual hub that brings together leading UK
researchers, acting as the two-way interface for government, industry and international
collaboration.
I. Aim – The UKCCSRC will innovate, lead and coordinate a programme of underpinning research on
all aspects of CCS in support of basic science and UK government efforts on energy and climate
change. In line with the EPSRC Delivery Plan 2011-2015 4, the UKCCSRC mission will be delivered
through three key areas:
Delivering Impact Developing Leaders Shaping Capability
Delivering Impact - will be maximised by providing a national focal point for CCS R&D to bring
together the user community and academics to analyse problems, devise and carry out world-
leading research and share delivery. A key priority will be to help build the UK economy by driving an
integrated research programme focused on maximising the contribution of CCS to a low-carbon
energy system for the UK.
Research will be linked to the following potential pathways to impact in future stages of CCS
deployment:
a) Maximise the benefit to the UK of the DECC CCS demonstration programme, and in particular
develop research in areas that can help to reduce the costs and risks of both first and
subsequent CCS projects.
b) Develop a knowledge base for the rollout of CCS as part of a programme of UK electricity sector
decarbonisation in the 2020s, anticipating the life of this CCS infrastructure until 2050 and
beyond.
c) Prepare for deployment of CCS to meet UK and EU 2050 targets, including industrial
applications, very low emissions from fossil fuels and negative emissions from biomass and
other air capture with CCS.
Developing Leaders - The UKCCSRC will transcend institutional and disciplinary boundaries and bring
together visionary leaders able to set national and international multi-discipline and medium-
timescale research agendas. These will combine the intersecting fields of knowledge required to
maximise the potential of CCS. With a wide range of investigators involved, plus further members
that will be recruited, UKCCSRC will mentor inspirational team leaders to act as role models on
complex, long-term research programmes, and provide leadership opportunities for early- and mid-
career researchers.
Shaping Capability - The UKCCSRC will provide CCS researchers with the continuity, support and
opportunities to foster creativity and empower them to deliver the highest quality long-term
research in areas where there is current or future national need. The UKCCSRC will develop
multidisciplinary research that can grow over time, enhance national capacity, and act as focal point
for international engagement.
Multi-disciplinarity - The UKCCSRC will actively seek support for fundamental and multidisciplinary
CCS research, which can have economic and social outcomes in the near, medium, and longer term,
from funders and sponsors in engineering and natural sciences in collaboration with the
environmental, biological, physical, chemical, economic and social sciences. These may be RCUK,
government or industry.
Growth - The UKCCSRC will look to build strategic national and international research partnerships
with industry and other user organisations to co-fund and co-deliver a range of R&D impacts linked
4 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publications/corporate/EPSRCDeliveryPlan2011-15.pdf, on
which this section is largely based.
73
to the growing opportunities for commercial deployment of CCS, in particular reducing costs,
improving performance and minimising risks for future generations of CCS projects.
UK capacity - The UKCCSRC, as the hub of CCS activity, will also provide a UK capacity to act as an
‘intelligent customer’, and ensure sovereign capability, by being able to quickly tackle new problems,
performing assessments, recognising breakthrough knowledge and technologies and communicating
and exploiting them.
International engagement - The UKCCSRC will lead on international scientific engagement in CCS,
exploiting existing major links with the rest of Europe, North America, China, Australia and India, and
developing interactions with other major potential CCS users in the Middle East, Africa and South
America.
Membership - Academic researchers active in CCS will form the membership of the UKCCSRC. Their
organisations will have to enter into the common project collaboration agreement5 prior to any
funding being received. Non-academic organisations will be able to join the Centre as affiliates and
sponsors.
Network - The UKCCSRC will also coordinate and extend the activities of the existing UK CCS
Community Network, open to anyone with a legitimate interest in CCS, and its Early Career
Researcher programme.
Structure – The activities of the UKCCSRC will be overseen by an independent Board made up of
RCUK and DECC representatives and of eminent and highly regarded individuals from CCS
stakeholder groupings, appointed by, and reporting to, the RCUK. The Board will also act as an
independent panel for final adjudication on allocations of funding for research from the UKCCSRC’s
RCUK grant. A Management Team (MT) made up of the Principal Investigator (PI), and eight Co-
Investigators (CoIs) with thematic responsibilities, plus a Secretariat, will be responsible for running
the Centre. In addition to operating the current grant, key elements of the MT’s role, supported by
the other Research Area Champions, will be ensuring the scientific authority, relevance, expansion
and longer-term sustainability of the UKCCSRC.
1.2 Funded Research Programme and Expansion Plans
As a single UK centre of excellence focussing on CCS, the UKCCSRC already has links through its
investigators and founder institutions to existing and recent research projects with a total value in
excess of £50M. UKCCSRC funding will support a core research programme identified in the first
phase of the RAPID process (see below) that both addresses gaps in existing research (a parallel
research landscape updating exercise will also be undertaken) and also supports scoping research in
areas likely to emerge as strategically important. The UKCCSRC will also set up new pilot-scale
shared national research facilities (approx. £2M plus £3.5M from DECC). A further £4.5M has been
set aside for seed funding, to be allocated on a competitive basis for emerging strategic research
needs.
The Centre will be expanded by a number of routes:
a) Academic researchers on existing and new CCS projects will be invited to link these to the Centre.
b) Non-academic partners in projects that are linked to the Centre may become UKCCSRC Affiliates
c) Additional funding for UKCCSRC research projects and programmes will be sought from RCUK and
other UK and international government-funded sources and also from industry
1.3 Research and Pathways to Impact Delivery (RAPID)
For UKCCSRC to be truly successful at delivering impact, the key is to link world-leading research
with impact from the outset. While serendipitous outcomes may arise, research on challenges
linked to CCS deployment must include plausible routes to delivering a positive impact.
The UKCCSRC has access to a wealth of talent and experience amongst its members, affiliates,
5 Currently including British Geological Survey, University of Cambridge, Cranfield University, Durham University, University of Edinburgh,
Imperial College London, University of Leeds, Newcastle University, University of Nottingham and Plymouth Marine Laboratory.
74
network members, stakeholders and advisory groups. This expertise allows the Centre to analyse
challenges for CCS deployment (both in terms of research and impact delivery), which can only be
dealt with in aggregate by multidisciplinary teams of leading researchers that have built up know-
how from working together and with key stakeholders.
In all cases, the UKCCSRC will assess whether the research and/or the impact can best be carried out
in partnership with other organisations, including partnership with funders. The same partners
could be involved in both research and impact. The UKCCSRC will have a much greater profile and
research assets than individual members and as a whole will be seen as a valuable partner, to join
and to invite into other collaborative research partnerships (in Europe and globally).
The RAPID process will run throughout the course of the UKCCSRC with results summarised in a
RAPID Handbook. The first draft of the Handbook will be published in July 2012 after a very
intensive 4 month exercise at the project outset, led by the Research Area Champions and gathering
input from a wide range of academic, industry and other stakeholders. This will set the scope and
priorities of the UKCCSRC core research programme. Thereafter, the Handbook will be updated
annually.
75
Appendix 2: Research Area Summaries
Research Area Champions, in conference with other stakeholders where possible, have prepared
two page summaries of research needed in different areas and possible pathways to delivery for
missing impacts.
Contents:
CCS Systems ................................................................................................................76
Adsorption and Membranes .......................................................................................79
Pre-Combustion Capture/Hydrogen ........................................................................... 81
Research Priorities for Oxyfuel Combustion ............................................................... 84
High Temperature Looping ......................................................................................... 87
Industrial Capture ....................................................................................................... 90
Transport .................................................................................................................... 93
Monitoring R&D .......................................................................................................... 96
Reservoir Engineering .................................................................................................100
Site Leasing and Regulation ........................................................................................ 102
Storage ........................................................................................................................ 104
Ecosystems and Environmental Impact ...................................................................... 108
Public Acceptability and Social ................................................................................... 111
Financing, Policy and Deployment .............................................................................. 114
CCS Construction Materials ........................................................................................ 117
CO2 Properties ............................................................................................................. 120
76
CCS Systems
Nilay Shah
Systems modelling and engineering as relevant to CCS covers four main areas: (i) unit operation
analysis and design; (ii) systems integration of different components/technologies; (iii) whole system
analysis and assessment and (iv) engineering design and scale up.
The systems engineering theme has a number of distinct elements which can be viewed in a
“bottom-up” fashion:
- Individual unit operation/component modelling, optimisation and design. This is particularly
important for novel processes (e.g. looping cycles for capture, new CO2 compressors, sub-
sea pipeline and CO2 injection monitoring and modelling). It is best undertaken in
conjunction with experimental studies and should be used to support systems engineering
and scale-up of individual technologies relevant to CCS. An example project could be
“Systems Engineering of Chemical Looping Combustion Technologies”. Both steady state and
dynamic performance are of interest.
- Systems integration: this explores the issues around the integration of individual
technologies (e.g. options for integrating capture plans and power plants or for integrating
biomass in CCGTs with CCS). It explores what the options are for such integration (e.g. gasify
the biomass or combust it in the HRSG) and how system performance (economic, energetic,
environmental, safety and operability etc.) depends on integration structures and specific
parametric degrees of freedom.
- Whole systems design and operational analyses: this uses models to explore configurations
of whole systems (power generation, capture, compression and transmission, injection and
storage). Interesting topics include understanding how best to optimise cost and minimise
environmental impact, based on a rigorous and transparent methodology based on
comprehensive life cycle analyses, in evolving networks, understanding dynamic operability,
the effects of impurities and flow/pressure transients etc.
- Model reduction techniques: this involves moving from rigorous descriptions to a more
simplified description, e.g., moving from a MS diffusion model to a meta-model approach.
This enhances the suitability of the models for control and optimisation studies in addition
to multi-source – multi-sink network studies.
- Engineering scale-up, impacts on other system components and RAMO: this experiment-led
activity takes the preferred integration options from the above and explores the practical
issues associated with engineering efficient and reliable systems, while also providing data
for model validation. These studies use the Centre’s pilot-scale ‘shared’ facilities to run trials
at simulated (and controlled) design, off-design and upset conditions in order to:
o confirm the practical operating envelopes (e.g. avoiding degradation of solvents,
sorbents and catalysts),
o identify the preferred control strategies and monitoring needs,
77
o determine the partitioning of fuel and other process-related species/contaminants
o address the impacts on other system components (e.g. fouling and erosion),
o define materials and manufacturing limitations, and
o determine component and overall system reliability.
Along with techno-economic analysis, this aims to reduce the technical and commercial risks of
further industrial scale-up.
In terms of analyses, most research uses some form of multiscale modelling concept, whereby
higher level models can be used as quick screens between different alternatives and more detailed
models used to explore the details of component performance and to drive systems optimisation.
Research Challenges: core and peripheral
Core
• Building a technology evaluation platform: the “virtual system” concept. The aim here is to
develop a model-based platform within which new technologies (power generation, capture,
compression, transmission, injection and storage etc) can be included to understand their
potential for improvement in whole systems performance and opportunities for systems
integration. This could build upon the existing NERC and ETI projects. The aim is to develop
an open-source “plug-and-play” system modeller which includes library components (power
plant components, capture components, compression and transmission and injection) at a
moderate level of fidelity. These can be used by the user to explore different configurations
and understand issues around multiple source CCS systems, system operability, new design
and operation insights etc. By defining clear protocols, users can also develop models of new
components and explore their ability to be effectively integrated. Members are encouraged
to contribute their individual models to the library to get the programme up and running as
quickly as possible
• Development and validation of dynamic process models keyed to supporting likely scenarios
of “flexible fossil fuel + CCS” – this requires a tight integration between modelling and
pilot/demo scale equipment to ensure that the models are sufficiently detailed to capture
the necessary physics whilst concurrently being suitable for long-term dynamic simulation.
• Multi-scale modelling approaches for developing capability in linking high-fidelity models
(e.g., CFD) with less computationally demanding models for evaluation of different capture
and power sources within a network.
• Model-based exploration and scale-up of key next generation capture technologies. A small
number of next generation technologies should be selected ; these will be modelled with a
view to understanding the key performance-determining phenomena which can then
support further experimental research. The models will be developed to be compatible with
the platform (to which they will be added) and periodically updated with new experimental
data. This should exploit the CFD and bioenergy capabilities within the membership.
78
Peripheral (supported by external or flexible funding)
• Work on thermodynamics (including new solvent design, eg IL) and impurities
• Integrating novel CO2 utilisation technologies
• Integration of industrial sources of CO2 into the CCS network (see industrial RAPID)
• Whole energy / system minimisation of CO2 emissions from UK plc
• Negative emissions technologies (biomass integrated CCS) and whole systems
79
Adsorption and Membranes
Stefano Brandani
In the development of second generation carbon capture technologies Adsorption and Membrane
processes will play a key role in reducing overall costs and energy penalties of carbon capture from
power plants and industrial large scale emitters. In a recent report prepared by NETL for the US
Department of Energy (March 2012), looking at post-combustion capture from coal fired power
plants, both adsorption and membrane processes were identified as next generation capture
technologies capable of achieving the DOE target of less than 35% energy penalty of the combined
capture and CO2 compression facility (http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-
analyses/pubs/NETLDOE20121557.pdf). These conclusions are based on an analysis of a complete
flowsheet for the integrated process and include details of both CAPEX and OPEX costs. Similar
conclusions can be drawn for pre-combustion capture approaches and in both cases the
advancement of the technology must rely on improvements in both materials and processes. This
will require close collaboration between chemists and engineers and this is a key strength of the UK.
The RCUK Energy programme, through a series of research projects on both coal and gas generation
either ongoing or soon to commence, is already providing significant support to this theme. The
work being carried out is at the forefront internationally and is exploring a wide range of novel
nanoporous materials (Zeolites and Metal Organic Frameworks from St Andrews; Polymers of
Intrinsic Microporosity from Cardiff and Manchester; Carbons with functional groups including
amines from Edinburgh, Manchester, Nottingham, Strathclyde, UCL). The strength from the
materials’ development can also be used to explore combinations of adsorbents and polymers to
develop mixed matrix membrane materials. From the process side, the challenge comes from the
requirements for carbon capture units which have very high constraints on both purity and recovery.
This means that conventional configurations are not feasible and advanced cycles and multi-stage or
hybrid systems are being considered. For adsorption processes an additional requirement is to push
the technological development towards fast cycles, which in turn leads to requirements on forming
materials into structured packings and rapid kinetic response. For membranes there is the need to
optimise multistage configurations and integrate them also in the initial compression stages.
Adsorption and membrane processes will play an important role also in additional fields relevant to
CCS:
1. Gas conditioning before the final compression stages.
2. Enhanced Oil Recovery – once the CO2 breaks through there will be the need for new
offshore gas separations solutions which require high efficiency and very small footprint.
3. Improved pre-treatment of Air Separation Units, potentially coupled to direct air capture.
4. Abatement of emissions of amine based degradation products on first generation carbon
capture processes.
To aid the deployment of these technologies in a wide range of conditions (temperature, pressure
and composition) there is also the need to develop further the laboratory testing capabilities in
order to determine the equilibrium and kinetic properties needed for rigorous dynamic models.
Moreover, some of the most promising carbon capture nanomaterials, such as MOFs, PIMs, and
functionalized carbons and silicas, are currently manufactured only at the lab scale using batch
synthesis methods. Before any of these materials can be applied economically at an industrial scale,
80
or even tested on a large scale, these synthesis processes will need to be scaled-up using continuous
processing. Because most of these materials are synthesized in solution through nucleation and
growth processes, this is a non-trivial problem and substantial scale-up research will be needed.
There is a clear opportunity here for the UK to become a leader in high value manufacturing of
carbon capture materials, and some work is already in progress towards this at Strathclyde.There is
already a significant research activity in the UK and this should be developed into a UK-wide facility
open to both academic and industrial access.
Priority Challenges and Research Areas
Materials:
i) Novel nanoporous solids for both adsorption and membrane processes.
ii) Mixed matrix membranes (MMMs).
iii) Further research on PIMs - these materials have been invented in the UK and are now being
investigated worldwide. We should be investing resources to maintain and improve our lead
position.
iv) Development of structured monoliths and packings.
v) Improved asymmetric membrane modules for MMMs.
vi) Slip-stream access and small scale movable testing units for rapid evaluation of material
stability to impurities in flue gases (SOX, NOX, etc.)
Processes:
i) Prototype multistage processes for lab scale testing requiring small sample quantities (less
than 10 kg).
ii) Hybrid process configurations for both low and high pressure conditions.
iii) Slip-stream access to test processes and deployment of larger scale pilot tests.
Material testing and manufacture:
i) Development of standard protocols and automated techniques for the determination of
properties, including kinetic properties. This is needed to facilitate direct comparisons.
ii) Development of a UK facility for testing nanoporous solids for adsorption and membrane
processes open to shared access from academic and industrial users. The facility should
combine fundamental measurements and a range of process configurations to accelerate
the deployment of novel or existing materials.
iii) Development of methods for scale-up and continuous manufacture of carbon capture
nanomaterials. This is needed to translate lab-scale discoveries to large scale testing and
application.
81
Pre-combustion Capture/Hydrogen
Trevor Drage
This document provides supporting information for the pre-combustion capture RAPID table and
focuses on knowledge application areas where UKCCS research can potentially have the greatest
impact. This assessment is based on the proposed level of development of the different
technologies indicated in the impact table and principal focus given to knowledge application areas
that require fundamental to small pilot scale research.
Pre-combustion capture is a multistage process with a number of unit operations from the air
separation unit, gasifier to the gas clean up and CO2 separation technologies. The RAPID table and
this document deal with these components in order to propose areas where UK CCS research can
have significant impact. The potential for the use of existing pre-combustion capture technologies
for carbon capture from underground coal gasification is also discussed.
Air Separation
Oxygen blown gasifiers, preferable for carbon capture applications, require an air separation unit.
Whilst cryogenic air separation is a commercially available technology, development is on-going of a
number of air separation techniques, for example membranes, with potential to reduce the energy
penalty of this process. Membrane systems have been developed based on ion transport
membranes (ITMs) / oxygen transport membranes (OTMs), which use pressure difference and
chemical potential respectively to separate oxygen from air. At present there is a requirement for
material development to improve performance and reliability, especially when their mechanical
reliability during load changes is low; there is also a need to improve lifetime and reliability by
improving resistance to creep, corrosion and contamination at the high temperatures of operation.
Gasifier Technologies
Gasifiers are considered to be a mature technology, with a number of off shelf options available,
with a number of near commercial gasifiers also under development. The development of solid feed
systems is an area where research could have impact, especially for maximising fuel and operation
flexibility by avoiding slurry feed. This technology could be especially beneficial for the feed of
biomass.
Gas Clean Up
A key requirement of pre-combustion capture is the removal of ash, particulates as well as sulphur
and nitrogen compounds to protect downstream components, for example turbine and HRSG.
Current commercially available technologies, cyclones, venturi scrubbers and scrubbing systems
require the gas to be cooled to approx 100 °C, by quench or heat recovery, to operate. Hot gas
clean up technologies have been proposed and tested to remove the cooling requirement.
Water Gas Shift Reaction
A range of catalysts has been developed for WGS to operate at high (350 – 500 °C), low (185 – 275
°C) and under sour conditions. There is always potential for improvements and incremental
development of these materials. Sorption or membrane enhanced water gas shift reaction has
been proposed as a route to perform WGS and CO2 capture simultaneously in a single reactor. This
can be achieved using a solid sorbent or through the use of a membrane system in conjunction with
a catalyst. Extensive research of this technology is currently being undertaken, for example by ECN.
82
Overall development of this technology requires the development and optimisation of materials as
well as process to develop beyond the small pilot scale testing currently underway.
CO2 Capture
A range of technologies are available for CO2, H2 separation. The current physical solvent
technologies are at an advanced stage. A number of alternative capture processes have been
proposed with potential to offer improvement over the current physical solvent technologies in
terms of cost, efficiency and flexibility. Most of these technologies, for example membranes, solid
sorbent, ionic liquids are the focus of significant research a development. These 2nd
and 3rd
generation capture technologies are at varying stages of development. However, similar for all is the
need for the development of functional materials6, to achieve the required capture performance,
and long term stability for scale up and application. There is also the need for the development of
processes for application and integration.
Hydrogen Gas Turbine Development
Development of gas turbines is required to optimise efficiency, reduce emissions and the lower cost
for operation when hydrogen rich fuels are used. Advances in combustion technology are proposed
as one to achieve this, for example lean premix technology. Other improvements can be achieved
through increased pressure-ratio and a slightly higher mass throughput.7
Plant Integration and Novel Cycles
A number of options exist for variations in plant design and given the large number of operation in
IGCC for better integration across the whole plant. These include flue gas cycling on the turbine, air
/ N2 integration of the ASU and more novel process designs such as oxy-fired IGCC systems8. There is
significant scope for the assessment and bench marking of these technology options.
Underground Coal Gasification with Carbon Capture
CCS has been proposed to be applicable to UCG via a number of routes. Pre-combustion capture
technologies can potentially be applied to the syngas produced by UCG. A number of research
challenges result from different gas compositions (for example CH4), different clean up requirements
and overall integration of the process.
Proposed Research Areas: most impact for UK CCS research
• Improved plant integration of ASU.
• Development of materials for oxygen separation membranes.
• Development of high pressure solid feed systems for gasifiers.
• Development of materials and processes for sorption/membrane enhanced water gas shift
reactions.
• Development of 2nd
and 3rd
generation capture technologies (adsorbents, membranes).
6 D. Gomez-Briceño, M. De Jong, T.C. Drage, M. Falzetti, N. Hedin and F. Snijkers (2011)
Scientific Assessment in support of the Materials Roadmap: Enabling Low Carbon Energy Technologies Fossil
Fuel Energies Sector, including Carbon Capture and Storage. ISBN 978-92-79-22324-2 7 IGCC State-of-the-art report a part of EU-FP7 Low Emission Gas Turbine Technology for Hydrogen-rich Syngas
H2-IGCC Sub Project 4 WP1-System Analysis. Department of Mech. & Structural Eng. & Material Science,
University of Stavanger. 8 Oki, Yuso, Inumaru, Jun, Hara, Saburo, Kobayashi, Makoto, Watanabe, Hiroaki, Umemoto, Satoshi, Makino,
Hisao (2011). Development of oxy-fuel IGCC system with CO2 recirculation for CO2 capture. Energy Procedia,
4, 1066-1073.
83
• Simulation and benchmarking novel gasification processes against the current state of the
art.
• Studies into component and plant performance for part load and flexible operation.
• Exploration of options for integration of CCS with UGC.
84
Research Priorities for Oxyfuel Combustion
M. Pourkashanian and RTJ. Porter
Technology maturity: Technical challenges induced by the change of oxidant environment in
oxyfuel combustion are believed to be surmountable because the technology is derived from
existing processes and its robustness has been confirmed through several years of oxyfuel pilot
operation. CCS deployment with oxy-combustion will therefore play a significant role in parallel to
post-combustion technologies. Oxy-combustion technology can be retrofitted to existing plants or
be applied to capture ready plants with no significant modifications to the turbine island being
required.
Oxy-combustion is eligible to retrofit and to CCS-ready concepts (Thomas Stringer, Director of R&D
Execution at Alstom, 2012)
1. Oxygen Production for Oxyfuel Systems (similar to pre-combustion research priorities)
• Advanced cryogenic distillation
o Cost reduction and process integration
• Oxygen separating membranes and adsorbents
o Further materials development (flux, selectivity improved performance at lower
temperatures, manufacturing methods)
o Materials resistance to poisoning and corrosion
o Scale up, process intensification and process integration including dynamic
simulation
o Demonstration and pilot and commercial scale
2. Oxy-Solid Fuel Retrofits and New Boilers (coal and “Biomass-CCS: The way forward for
Europe” )
• Slagging, fouling and corrosion caused by oxyfuel conditions require further investigation
at laboratory and pilot scale
• Sulphur species investigations
o Capture in fly ash
o SO2/SO3 conversion and its impact on Hg retention,
o Deposition
• Numerical modelling
o Radiative heat transfer in oxy combustion is modified as non-gray radiative
properties of the combustion gases cannot be neglected. The accurate prediction
of radiative heat fluxes and temperature is essential for modelling combustion.
o Char oxidation/gasification and burnout is influenced by the high concentrations
of CO2 and H2O in oxy-coal combustion and the classic models are not capable of
predicting the transition between combustion regimes in oxy-coal combustion.
o Intermediate pathways for fuel-NOx formation should be re-considered in
chemical kinetic mechanisms.
o Techno-economic evaluations should incorporate state-of the art CFD generated
data into system simulations because no full-scale data exists for validation.
85
• Design of Pulverised Fuel (PF) and Continuous Fluidised Bed (CFB) for size and cost
reduction
o Flue gas recycle reduction and increased O2 concentration
o Combustion behaviour at high O2 concentrations
o Pressurised oxyfuel combustion
• Operational experience with biomass and co-firing coal/biomass in PF and CFB
3. Oxyfuel Gas Turbine Combustors: E.g.: Oxy-Gas, High Pressure, Supercritical CO2 Cycle, Oxy-
Gas with CO2 for EOR
• Fundamental investigations of gaseous oxyfuel fuel combustion with O2 in CO2 and H2O
environment under high pressure
• Design of combustor for complete and stable combustion in modified heat transfer
conditions
• Optimisation and cost reduction of Trigen rocket engine technology with EOR
• Supercritical CO2 cycles
4. Oxyfuel Gas Turbines
• Material tests for higher operating temperatures and CO2/H2O working medium mixture
• CFD studies of combustion and heat transfer in CO2/H2O mixtures
• Process control for large scale flue gas recirculation systems
• Development of cooling systems
• Demonstration plants to improve understanding and provide data for model validation
5. Flue Gas Recycling and O2 Mixing
• Safety testing of technologies and material for mixing of recycled flue gas and O2 in
environments that may contain dust and unburnt carbon particles.
• Experimental and CFD investigations into positioning of O2 and recycled flue gas mixing
points
• Investigations into O2 mixing for oxyfuel gas turbines
6. Flue Gas Treatment
• DeNOx plants (Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
(SNCR)) require investigation into deactivation and S-conversion due to high dust
arrangements in oxyfuel flue gas conditions. Issues may relate to downstream fouling and
corrosion by NH3 and sulphur species additionally.
• Very little experimental data and few modelling studies on the behaviour of mercury and
other trace metal in oxy-coal conditions. Predictive tools for the impact of SO2/SO3 on
heterogeneous processes of mercury with UBC in fly-ash are required.
• Effective removal technologies for corrosive SO3 and Hg species.
86
7. CO2 Compression
• Further research into removal of SOX and NOX removal during compression stage
• Improved CO2 compressor efficiencies at full and part loads and extension of load ranges.
• Compressor material tests under oxyfuel stream conditions
8. Process Intensification
• Chemical Looping Combustion
o Development and sourcing of oxygen carriers for different fuels
o Fuel conversion efficiency and CO formation avoidance
o Scale up of all process components to industrial scale
o Reactor design, optimisation and materials selection
o Integration into power production process
9. Overall Process Development and Integration
• Optimisation and cost reduction
• Pathways to commercial scale through demonstration
• System simulations
o Techno-economic evaluations incorporating state-of the art CFD generated data
into system simulations
o Development of dynamic models to study whole system load variations, identify
system flexibility weak points and solutions
87
High Temperature Looping
Stuart Scott
High temperature looping cycles are designed to overcome the very large energy penalties that are
imposed by other carbon capture techniques. The first generation capture plants will be based on
temperature swing scrubbing units (working at low temperatures) or oxy-fuel plants. For post-
combustion capture, high temperature looping cycles are able to approach the thermodynamic limit
on energy penalty, because, unlike lower temperature systems such as amine scrubbers, the heat
they reject is at a very high temperature and can be recovered in the power cycle. Large scale trials
are currently underway looking at both carbonate looping (http://www.caoling.eu/) and metal
looping (http://www.est.tu-darmstadt.de/index.php/en/co2-versuchsfeld) schemes. Both types of
looping cycles require two interconnected reactors to operate continuously, typically fast or
bubbling fluidised beds.
The carbonate looping cycle is already being trialled at the 2MW large scale
(http://www.caoling.eu/) and shows promise in the near term as it can be applied as a post
combustion capture technique. In this case, CO2 is absorbed onto calcium oxide (in the carbonator),
which is then transported to a second reactor (the calciner) where the temperature is raised by oxy-
firing coal, and the CO2 released. The energy content of this extra coal can be recovered from
carbonator which operates at a temperature above that of supercritical boiler. There is some energy
penalty associated with having to oxy-fire the calciner, but much less than if all the fuel were oxy-
fired. Such a scheme adds a second source of heat to the power cycle which can be used to generate
power. Although clearly feasible, and thermodynamically favourable, several engineering issues
need to be addressed with this approach. Firstly, although attractive as a post combustion capture
technique, the power cycle would have to be considerably up-rated if this was applied as a retrofit
(or implemented with a significantly sub-optimal steam cycle), thus work is needed on how best to
integrate the high temperature looping cycle into the power cycle (for new and retrofit cases).
Secondly, the sorbent may degrade over time, and there is a trade off-between the cost of using
cheap natural materials (i.e. limestone), and more advanced manufactured sorbents; more
understanding on how the chemical and physical structure of the sorbent particle affects
performance is required. There is also a considerable amount of work on the regeneration of
sorbents (or their reuse in other systems, such as cement manufacture, or as sorbents for sulphur
capture), and whilst results are encouraging, the underlying mechanisms have still to be elucidated.
Thirdly, understanding of the system as a whole is required, from the performance of the sorbent
particles through to the dynamic response of the power station and the economics of operating the
power-station within different energy markets. In terms of practical application, calcium looping is
already being demonstrated and engineering issues such as the reactor conditions to maximise
capture, control, role of minor fuel components, through to the final CO2 purity and the need for
further gas cleaning before compression and transport are still to be addressed.
Whilst the carbonate and similar cycles allow post combustion capture, metal-oxide (or similar)
cycles allow the fuel to be oxy-fired without the energy penalty associated with producing pure
oxygen. In-fact, metal oxide looping was first suggested as a way of improving combustion efficiency
(by removing the thermodynamic irreversibility associated with traditional combustion) and
88
avoiding NOx formation. The oxygen contained in a solid metal oxide “oxygen carrier” is first used
to combust the fuel in the absence of air in the “fuel reactor” (avoiding dilution with N2 and allowing
nearly pure CO2 to be recovered by condensing the water), and the spent solid then regenerated in a
separate step using air. As with the calcium cycle, the theoretical efficiency is high because all of the
heat generated is at a high temperature, so it can be recovered into the power cycle. This has
already been demonstrated at pilot scale with a gaseous fuels and work is ongoing in application to
solid fuels. However, without pressurized operation, chemical looping on natural gas is not
competitive in efficiency terms with NGCC + CCS. In general, very little work has been done on
pressurised CLC systems. Solid fuels are more challenging as the fuel must first be gasified or
pyrolysed, and there may be interactions between the ash and minor components which affect the
longevity of the oxygen carrier and pollutant profile. The success of the approach relies on the ability
of the oxygen carrier to undergo many cycles of oxidation and reduction; thus, further research is
needed into mechanisms of degradation of the oxygen carriers. The fact that solid fuels must be
gasified adds complexity to the process, in particular the mismatch between the rates of gasification
and combustion of the generated syngas can lead to a build up of char in the fuel reactor. Whether
or not this issue can be solved by schemes such as CLOU (Chemical looping with oxygen uncoupling,
where gas phase oxygen is generated locally), or by separating the un-reactive char using a carbon
stripper (at the expense of increased reactor complexity) is currently an active area of research.
Details of the reactors have yet to be finalised, with problems of fuel slip identified as one problem
that needs to be overcome with current fast-bed designs.
Thus, both post combustion looping cycles (e.g. carbonate) and oxy-fuel looping cycles face similar
research challenges. Both require solids which can be cycled many times or be regenerated and
research in this area is ongoing. This area would still benefit greatly from an understanding of the
fundamental material chemistry and science, since most work is currently empirical. In addition to
studying existing materials to either tune their performance or elucidate fundamental mechanism;
there are also novel materials requiring investigation (e.g. perovksites, mixed metal oxides,
structured hydroxides, modified natural materials), which may provide a step change in
performance. Applying looping cycles to a full scale power cycle will require a large amount of
material, which is either very cheap, or will last indefinitely. Scaling up novel materials from the few
grams in the laboratory, to kilogram, then tonne scale is challenging, and more work is needed in
this area. Although these schemes are very dependent on the performance of the particles, more
understanding is needed at the system level, both in terms of power-station performance, but also
economics and environmental benefit, and interaction with other industry sectors. This latter point
is important since not only are some industries large sources of CO2, but they also may be able to
provide materials which act as looping agents or add value to the waste looping materials (e.g. CaO
in cement, or iron oxides in the steel industry). In addition to the obvious synergies between high
temperature solid looping cycles and either iron and steel manufacture or cement production, there
are also opportunities for more efficient operation by properly integrating looping cycles in the
industrial flow sheet.
Finally, these cycles have applications in pre-combustion capture, the upgrading of syngas and the
production of hydrogen. Materials such as CaO which can absorb CO2 can be used in the water-gas
89
shift reaction to produce H2, and many metal oxide looping cycles can be adapted to produce H2
rather than heat, e.g. by oxidising with steam.
90
Industrial Capture
Paul Fennell
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is frequently associated with coal-fired electricity generation, and
to an increasing extent with gas-fired generation. However, there are many other sources of CO2
which can also benefit from the technology; many of these are substantially easier to retrofit with
CCS than are power stations. Due to rising energy costs, many energy intensive industrial processes
have made significant advancements in energy efficiency over the past 40 years and are now
operating close to their thermodynamic limits. The options for further reduction are highly limited.
Furthermore, for process-related emissions (those inherent to the process itself, such as the
emission of CO2 during the calcination of limestone for lime or cement manufacture) there is little
choice other than to apply CCS if the industry is to be substantially decarbonized. In light of this, it is
surprising that the power industry, where technologies such as wind, tidal and hydropower offer
serious alternatives to the application of CCS (through clearly there are issues with intermittent
generation) has dominated the research and development agenda. A synthesis report for the United
Nations Industrial Development Organisation (Unido) [1] states that “This area has so far not been
the focus of discussions and therefore much attention needs to be paid to the application of CCS
to industrial sources if the full potential of CCS is to be unlocked”. For context, the IEA Blue map
scenario suggests that industrial CCS will be almost as important as CCS on power by 2050.
Systems
Industrial CCS is a broad area, and in a number of cases the basic model for post-combustion CCS is
similar to that for power generation; however, in all cases the heat integration and optimisation is
different, leading to requirements for systems analysis for even the most basic configurations. Much
of the literature refers back to a small number of IEA studies [2, 3], there is much less independent
validation of costs by different researchers. Figure 1 demonstrates the wide variety of partial
pressures that CO2 can be captured at, from different CCS processes.
Optimisation of heat flows between industry and power generation, especially when CCS is added to
the plant, is another key way to enhance the overall efficiency of the combined processes, including
carbon capture. Of particular note here is the synergy between power, cement manufacture and
the carbonate looping cycle for CO2 capture.
Figure 1.Partial pressures of
CO2 from a variety of industrial
and power generation
sectors.After [4].
Basic Research: Post-
combustion capture. Most
91
industrial processes are amenable to a post-combustion CO2 capture step. Basic research here is
similar to that required for the application of CCS on power. However, it is important to note that
the temperature, partial pressure and O2 content (as well as many other trace element
contaminants), together with the availability and temperature of low-grade heat, will be different to
that for CCS on power, necessitating testing of novel sorbents under realistic conditions for each
system desired.
Basic Research: Many manufacturing processes have the potential to integrate well with high
temperature solid looping cycles.
Iron and Steel
Top-gas recycling is a new method to reduce the coke requirements in a blast furnace. The reducing
gas from the top of the blast furnace is stripped of CO2 and sent back to the furnace. Currently, this
involves cooling the gas to allow stripping via an amine solution; however, a high temperature
stripping stage, using CaO as the absorbent would allow the recycled gas to be returned to the blast
furnace hot. Furthermore, there are other potential integration possibilities with chemical looping
combustion, particularly when Fe2O3 / Fe is used as the looping material.
Cement Manufacture
The unique synergy of cement manufacturing with carbonate looping is that CaO, the regenerable
absorbent for CO2, is also the primary feed to the cement works. This means that the process as a
whole generates zero waste. Topics of interest are the re-use of looped material in cement
manufacture (i.e. are there any cement quality issues?) and the basic integration and design of the
plant, though both Edinburgh and Imperial have integrated models of Ca looping with cement
manufacture. Another topic of great interest is the re-use of ashes from other novel combustors (for
example, oxyfired PF boilers) in cement manufacture.
Oxyfuel (Cement)
Oxyfiring of a cement kiln can lead to significantly higher efficiencies for the cement manufacture
process, owing to the removal of the thermal ballast associated with the nitrogen in air. However,
the recycling of CO2 in the process would significantly change the calcination temperature for CaCO3,
and potentially the cement clinkering reactions. The development of such a process would be a dual
win – a more efficient process which also captured CO2. Blast furnaces are already oxyfired – but
work on integrating oxygen membranes and blast furnaces may be interesting.
Petrochemicals
The firing of significant quantities of fuels for the purposes of generation of heat, as opposed to
electricity, is an opportunity for chemical looping combustion; in this context, if natural gas is fired,
there is no conflict between the fact that the efficiency of generation using NGCC with post-
combustion capture is higher than that of atmospheric pressure chemical looping. In particular,
firing using sour gas is an area of significant promise.
1. de Coninck, H., Mikunda, T., Gielen, D., Nussbaumer, P., and Shchreck, B., Carbon Capture
and Storage in Industrial Applications, Technology Synthesis Report. United Nations Industrial
Development Organisation, 2010.
2. IEA GHG RD&D Database
[http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/project_specific.php?project_id=71]
92
3. International Energy Agency, Energy Transitions for Industry - Strategies for the next
industrial revolution. International Energy Agency Publications, Paris, France., 2009.
4. Kaarstad, O., Berger, B., and Berg, S., More than coal - Towards a broader role for CCS.
Energy Procedia 2011 4:0 pp2662-2668.
93
Transport
Julia Race
The majority of the research that is being undertaken in the transportation area worldwide
concentrates on pipeline transportation of dense phase CO2. The UKCCSRC is extensively linked into
the current RCUK and EU transport related projects through direct research activities and through
research participation with key academic researchers and industrial research co-ordinators in the
UK, Norway and Europe. The key themes of this research relate to materials selection, infrastructure
and network development, risk assessment and standards development. The recognition in the aims
of these projects is that little is known on the transportation requirements for CO2 from power and
industrial capture plant and the development of design protocols and standards is an immediate
requirement in order to be able to safely and economically design, construct and operate a CO2
pipeline.
RAPID for Transportation
For the purposes of the RAPID exercise, the transportation theme has been organised into 5
application areas (dense phase pipeline transportation onshore; dense phase pipeline transportation
offshore; gas phase pipeline transportation onshore; ship based transport inland waterways and ship
based transport offshore). The technology areas and research areas for each of these application
areas have been defined by asking the question; “what do we need to know in order to design a
transportation system” and “what is the specific research required to address the technology area?”
The current level of understanding in the technology area is then ranked on a scale of 1-9. The RAPID
table also indicates the area in which the impact of the research will be focussed; CAPEX, OPEX,
Safety, Regulation and System Efficiency.
Setting Priorities for Research
The RAPID impact tables provide a snapshot of the level of understanding in the different technology
areas and the research projects currently delivering this knowledge. However, the level of
understanding in an area does not necessarily set the priorities for that area e.g. an area might have
a low level of understanding but might not affect the implementation of a CCS transport system. The
research from the current projects will be available within the next 2-3 years; however, the FEED
studies for the transportation system will need to start within the next year. It is therefore
considered that in order to be able to set the priorities for research in transportation, the key
questions should be;
• What research is required to enable safe transportation of CO2 using existing technologies in the
short term?
• What information do we need to be able to transport CO2 more cost effectively using existing
technologies in the medium term?
• What new technologies and methodologies might enable us to transport higher volumes of CO2
from more disparate sources more efficiently in the long term?
94
It is highlighted that transportation is a critical component in the CCS chain and that
underinvestment in research in this area will affect the ability to be able to deliver CCS as a viable
proposition for reducing CO2 emissions.
Pipeline Transportation
For pipeline transportation, the key priority issues in the short term, are considered to be:
• Improvement in the understanding of the effect of impurities and whether existing
methodologies used for natural gas pipeline transportation can be transferred to CO2. Immediate
research projects should focus on the development of phase behaviour models for four-phase
CO2 mixtures for use in hydraulic models, fracture models and dispersion models to confirm their
suitability for design of the first dense phase pipeline systems.
• The specification of the water content in the pipeline with impurities. The specification of the
drying requirement will impact the capture plant (in terms of the dehydration required) and the
pipeline (in terms of the materials and maintenance required) and needs to be specified with
certainty. Whilst a range of models have been tested and validated for the CO2-H2O system,
studies are far more limited for CO2 mixtures that will be encountered in CCS
• The development of methodologies and equipment for metering the CO2 into and out of the
pipeline and for on-line monitoring of the components and composition in the pipeline.
• The development of techno-economic models for determining the optimum range of impurities
in the transportation pipelines.
• The development of improved models for predicting ductile and brittle fracture propagation
based on fluid/structure interaction.
• Improvement in the prediction of CO2 behaviour around the release site following a pipeline leak
or rupture to allow the potential hazards and risks to be more accurately assessed.
In the medium term, key objectives should be:
• The development of decision-making risk-assessment tools for determining the safety and
environmental impacts associated with the transportation of impure CO2 and the
recommendation of appropriate prevention and mitigation methods.
• Support for the development of relevant design and operation standards for pipeline
transportation of CO2.
• Development of materials for transportation of CO2 streams containing increased levels of
impurity, e.g. steel materials with increased toughness and resistance to potentially sour
environments.
In the long term, research projects should be focussed on the development of technologies to
transport higher volumes of CO2 from potentially more disparate sources.
95
Ship Based Transportation
There has been much less research conducted on ship based transportation compared with pipeline
transportation. In part, this is due to the priority which is given to pipeline transportation, which is
considered as the optimum solution for the transportation of large quantities of CO2. However,
shipping could be considered for transportation over large distances, where it will become more
economical than pipeline transportation, and could also be considered at the initial stages of CCS
infrastructure development, particularly for stranded sources and sinks. In order to be able to
analyse the shipping option effectively, it is considered that priority should be given to short term
feasibility studies prior to the development of larger research projects e.g. -
• Development of CO2 ship transportation logistical models to evaluate the basis on which ship
based transportation of CO2 could be undertaken e.g. storage at port, port equipment
requirements (liquefaction facilities), potential shipping routes, analysis of number of vessels
required etc.
• Analysis of the technical requirements for unloading CO2 from a ship at the injection site e.g.
floating buoy arrangements.
• Development of models to analyse the effects of a release from a CO2 ship at sea or in port.
Once the feasibility of these options has been determined then further research work should focus
on research related to risk assessment and transfer technologies.
Integrated Transportation Systems
It is recognised that at either end of the transportation system, the link must be made to the capture
or storage facility. Much of the transport related research is being conducted independently and
there is a need to bring the strands together in an integrated manner which takes into account the
capture plant and storage site requirements, as well as addressing systems, environmental, social,
legislative and economic issues.
96
Monitoring R&D
Andy Chadwick
Monitoring is a key element of storage site performance verification and is integral to storage
requirements under European regulations (principally the European Directive, OSPAR and the EU
ETS). Primary objectives in the UK context are:
1. To show that the site is performing safely and there will be no adverse environmental or
safety impacts
2. To show that the site is performing as expected by calibration and verification of predictive
models and will continue to do so in the future
3. To demonstrate that the site is not leaking
4. To measure emissions (in the event of leakage to seabed)
5. To provide suitable information for mitigation or remediation actions should these be
necessary
Monitoring programmes will comprise a judicious combination of deep-focussed monitoring
focussed on the reservoir and deep overburden (the ‘Storage Complex’) and shallow-focussed
monitoring to characterise any overburden emissions (both natural and man-made).
Deep-focussed Monitoring
The main deep-focussed tools have been used extensively in the oil industry and are technically
mature. 4D seismics are of proven efficacy, providing 3D time-lapse imaging of the reservoir and
overburden (e.g. Sleipner, Weyburn, Snohvit). Downhole (or less ideally wellhead) pressure
monitoring is similarly effective, providing reservoir calibration at In Salah, Snohvit, Weyburn etc.
More complex reservoir and overburden pressure monitoring systems are also being trialled e.g. at
Cranborne (US), but results so far are not straightforward to interpret. Specialised deep-focussed
tools have been deployed at pilot-scale injection sites e.g. VSP/MSP (Frio, Ketzin etc) crosshole
seismics (Frio, Nagaoka), cross-hole electrical and various surface-downhole electrical
configurations. Well-based methods however run into significant problems at the industrial-scale
where widely-spaced (and expensive) wells preclude crosshole techniques and near wellbore
measurements are limited in their ability to unravel spatial detail. A good example of this is at Ketzin
where unexpected CO2 breakthrough times were measured in one of the Ketzin monitoring wells but
the explanation of this is uncertain. Geomechanical stability of the reservoir is a key issue and
microseismicity monitoring will have a role to play. A key aim is to provide early warning of
geomechanical instability, perhaps by identifying precursors to fault slip? Cost-reduction is always an
issue and the benefits of continuous (rather than time-lapse) monitoring might be significant.
Issue
Induced geomechanical instability is perceived to be a significant potential containment risk. Early
warning (preferably prior to fault instability) would be e very desirable.
Research action
Design tools and methods for robust seismicity baselining. Develop real-time predictive passive
monitoring methodology to measure seismic precursors and provide pre-warning of geomechanical
instability. Improve geomechanical modelling and understanding of in situ stresses.
97
Outcome
Reduced risk of serious induced seismicity and/or leakage. Improved public acceptance.
Issue
No tools currently exist for continuous (well-based) monitoring of the reservoir with any degree of
spatial resolution.
Research action
Develop novel tools for imaging CO2 in reservoir between widely-spaced wellbores.
Outcome
Improved understanding of reservoir performance, complementary to time-lapse seismic.
Issue
Currently available monitoring systems (e.g. time-lapse seismics and downhole methods) are
generally expensive. A low-cost passive or passive/active monitoring system, capable of measuring
changes in a key diagnostic trigger parameter could radically lower longer-term monitoring costs.
Research action
Develop a low-cost monitoring system designed to trigger conventional monitoring only if key
diagnostic threshold exceeded.
Outcome
Lower costs due to reduced time-lapse repeat frequency on conventional monitoring systems.
Issue
Reliable characterisation of CO2 in the reservoir via detailed wellbore measurements and/or time-
lapse geophysical measurements is essential to demonstrate understanding of reservoir processes
and to calibrate and verify predictive performance models. So far quantitative seismic analysis
suffers significant ‘non-unique’ uncertainties.
Research action
Design improved analytical methodologies, either by deploying complementary tools (e.g. seismic
plus gravimetry) or improving seismic analysis (e.g. inversion tools, or integrated studies e.g.
simultaneous seismic and flow-modelling) to reduce uncertainty.
Outcome
Improved calibration and verification of predictive models – key regulatory requirement.
98
Shallow-focussed Monitoring
In contrast to the deep-focussed tools, shallow-focussed tool development is relatively immature.
There are two key requirements: to reliably identify leaks (emissions) at the seabed to a known
sensitivity and to measure these emissions to a known precision. The types of tools that will be used
for this (seabed acoustic imaging, bubble-stream imaging and characterisation, detection, seabed
flux measurements, geochemical measurements in the water-column etc) are all available, but
further development and the design of integrated monitoring systems, novel data storage and
transmission systems is required. A further important element of shallow monitoring is to develop a
proper understanding of natural baseline emissions (e.g. CO2, methane) variations in a range of
settings. This must capture all spatial and temporal variation both on the short-term and longer
seasonal/annual timescales). The importance of a full understanding of baseline variation cannot be
over emphasised, because, once injection has started, any wandering of observed measurements
outside of the assumed baseline variation might be misconstrued as leakage. Public acceptance
issues surrounding leakage are acute, particularly onshore (which impacts on transport issues).
Issue
Regulatory requirement to demonstrate ‘no leakage’ to a specified accuracy.
Research action
Design suitable shallow-focussed tools and deployment methodologies to ensure all leaks above a
certain threshold will be identified.
Outcome
Improved compliance with regulatory requirements.
Issue
Regulatory requirement to demonstrate measure emissions to a specified accuracy.
Research action
Design suitable shallow-focussed tools and deployment methodologies to measure total site
emissions.
Outcome
Improved compliance with regulatory requirements and possible reduced emissions penalties.
Issue
In the event of leakage a regulator will need to know which storage site, or CO2 stream, is leaking.
This might be problematical in the event of stacked or adjacent storage sites.
Research action
Design system for artificial or natural tracers to uniquely identify specific CO2 streams .
99
Outcome
Correct attribution of leakage to responsible party.
Issue
Proper understanding of natural emissions variations to establish robust baselines.
Research action
Measure emissions from a range of natural systems to cover spatial and temporal ranges at required
scales.
Outcome
Robust definition of natural variation at a range of storage site types to avoid ‘false positives’ for
leakage.
Issue
Leakage associated with transport infrastructure.
Research Action
Design low cost, low profile (i.e non-invasive) leakage detection system for pipelines.
Outcome
Reliable verification of pipeline integrity. Much improved public confidence.
100
Reservoir Engineering
Martin Blunt (and Aaron Goater)
Issue - Liabilities
Both industry and governments are potentially putting very large liabilities on their balance sheets
due to a lack of understanding of the risk of leakage and the worst case cost. Due to the lack of
understanding the insurers are also not providing insurance. One portion of this risk that needs
better understanding is the risk of leakage up faults.
Resolution
From the reservoir engineering angle:
Improved understanding of fault flow properties – especially vertical flow properties that could lead
to leakage. Also, improved prediction of fault flow properties from geological data.
Impact
More realistically sized liabilities are expected by operators/governments. This will improve the
likelihood of commercialisation of CCS projects.
Priority: high
Issue – Storage Modelling
Ability of CO2 storage modelling to provide the accuracy of prediction required under CO2 storage
regulation at close of injection. This is particularly relevant when migration is harder to predict in
open aquifers.
Resolution
Improved modelling parameterisation– including improved understanding of fundamentals such as
relative permeabilities, convective mixing and others.
Impact
This would reduce potential regulatory resistance to CO2 storage towards close of projects. The
alternative would be to change regulation.
Priority: medium term
Issue - Cost
Cost of CO2 storage needs to be reduced.
Resolution
a. Using storage space more efficiently/ development of optimal injection scenarios.
Priority: medium term
b. Development of potential for water production (more efficient use of space and reduced risk
of reservoir damage due to high pressure) and WAG(higher residual trapping –lower risk of
leakage) within regulations.
101
Priority: important/medium term
c. Reduce cost of modelling by developing a clear CO2 modelling workflow. In particular this
may highlight where different modelling techniques should be used.
Priority: medium term
Impact
a. Cheaper storage encouraging uptake – potential to develop IP.
b. Cheaper storage as more efficient use of space/ lower risk of leakage.
c. Reduced modelling expense.
Issue – Time Frame
Time-frame of post-injection monitoring is unclear.
Resolution
Using storage design and modelling (related to previous issues) to make the storage safe shortly
after injection phase. Use a brief, verifiable period of monitoring to confirm model predictions and
allow closure of sites.
Priority: medium term
Impact
a. Development of clear monitoring guidelines.
b. Cheaper monitoring over realistic time-frames.
Issue – Engineering Methodology
Engineering methodology for site selection and capacity estimation is needed for a coherent CCS
storage strategy.
Resolution
Take best practice to develop a framework and guidelines for storage assessment and site selection
that accounts for migration and pressure limitations and with stages related to modelling
assessments and data collection.
Priority: medium term
Impact
a. Agreed methodology for storage site assessment and delineating storage capacity.
b. Framework for operators and regulators.
102
Site Leasing and Regulation
Sam Holloway
Issue 1: EU Storage Directive
Some of the conditions for storage laid out in the EU Storage Directive and transposed into national
legislation in the UK may be difficult to meet in practice, either because of technological constraints
or prohibitive cost. These could act as barriers to CCS deployment.
Resolution
In collaboration with stakeholders, develop Key Performance Indicators that will demonstrate site
performance and can be used to allow site closure and transfer of liability.
Article 38 of the EU Storage Directive indicates that a report reviewing the implementation of the
Directive has to be submitted to the European Parliament before 31 March 2015. The report has to
include [an assessment of the need for]: “Further development and updating of the criteria referred
to in Annex I and Annex II” (criteria for the characterisation and assessment of the potential storage
complex and surrounding area and the criteria for establishing and updating the monitoring plan).
If any conditions in the Directive exceed KPIs, submit evidence to those undertaking this review.
Impact
Potential modifications to the EU Storage Directive.
Priority
High
Issue 2: Optimising Use of Storage Resources
Under current arrangements, licensing of CO2 storage sites will follow a ‘market-driven’ approach in
which the “most economically advantageous” individual projects are selected. However, basins have
multiple uses and increased pressure in any reservoir from CO2 injection may reduce storage
capacity and increase costs in adjacent sites, potentially wasting good sites.
Resolution
Develop a more strategic approach that would ensure basins realise their full storage potential.
Determine which sites should be prioritised for storage and when.
Impact
Provide evidence to underpin development of strategies for storage implementation.
Priority
High
Issue 3: Environmental Impacts of Co2 Storage
Limited evidence is available on the potential environmental impact of CO2 storage, particularly in
marine environments.
Resolution
Develop improved evidence base on the potential environmental impact of CO2 storage projects,
particularly in the offshore domain (including environmental impacts of brine migration from sub-
seabed geological formations to the marine biosphere as well as CO2 migration/ leakage). Evidence is
103
being developed in various active projects, e.g. RISCS, QICS, ECO2. Make evidence available to EU
regulators, DECC, Scottish Ministers, potential storage project operators and other stakeholders.
Impacts
1. Increased understanding by regulators, operators and other stakeholders of the potential
impact of CO2 storage projects on the environment.
2. Potential impacts on licensing (via EIA).
3. Potentially more cost-effective environmental monitoring technologies developed.
Priority
High
Issue 4: Effect of Faults on Licensing
A recent workshop held by OCCS considered potential injectivity and security of storage issues for
aquifer storage sites. It is clear that our understanding of fault permeability and flow properties
under both static and changing stress conditions could be improved.
Resolution
Further research into fault properties under static and changing stress conditions.
Impact
Improved fault models could reduce uncertainty around containment.
Priority
Medium from a licensing perspective, high from a geological uncertainty perspective.
Issue 5: Licensing Migration-Assisted Storage
Some of the large, high-permeability Palaeogene fan sandstones in the North Sea, e.g. Forties
Sandstone, appear to have excellent CO2 storage prospects. However, in such reservoirs CO2 is
typically predicted to continue to migrate within a large storage complex for long periods (decades
and longer) before becoming trapped in small closures and/or as a residual saturation or by
dissolution. This means the regulator may be reluctant to licence them even if site characterisation
and risk assessment indicate that they are secure and high quality stores.
Resolution
Evidence about the capacity and security of containment of such reservoirs, and demonstration of
the level of site characterisation needed to establish such reservoirs will meet regulatory
requirements, should be developed and disseminated to regulators and other stakeholders.
Impact
Increased licensable cost-effective storage capacity.
Priority
Medium
104
Storage
Stuart Haszeldine
Overview and State of the Art
Storage comprises the prospective identification of subsurface sites for injection of CO2 and
associated impurities. Storage differs from other parts of the CCS chain, in that sufficient storage for
30yr CO2 has to be proven before a project is built, so that learning opportunities are very condensed
into the next 10 years.
Calculation and simulation of CO2 injection tonnages are established protocols, although imperfect.
Injection of CO2 overlaps with reservoir engineering, and suffers from incomplete information on
rock properties. Understanding the retention of CO2 into the future requires qualitative and, as far as
possible, quantitative understanding and computational simulation. The accuracy of predictions, and
especially the precision, overlaps with requirements for both monitoring and licensing. Very little
work has been undertaken on UK-specific CO2 storage, except for high level storage assessments.
Because geological, geophysical and petrophysical principles are generic, it may be possible to
undertake work in other locations, which is of direct use to the UK. In most assessments of CCS, the
storage aspects are perceived as poorly quantified, and of high irreducible uncertainty, equating to a
project risk.
Impact of research on storage will be to : i) increase confidence in storage volumes, ii) identify and
quantify the processes which could result in adequately-performing or under-performing storage
sites, iii) increase mutual knowledge and understanding of the sub-surface with professionals and
publics.
Trapping in Minerals, Chemicals, Ocean
The great majority of UK work on storage is focused on fluid CO2 to be physically and chemically
retained in porous rock media. There are several additional possibilities to store CO2 1) by reaction
with natural minerals on an industrial scale at the surface, including engineered injection into basalt
or accelerated weathering 2) by designed industrial process chemical reactions to form solids,
plastics or fuels 3) by engineered injection to the deep ocean.
Research: pilot studies of these capture types has been undertaken since the 1990’s, and has
recently been funded by ETI and NERC. Whilst technically feasible, all these options have so far failed
to impress as a real-world option for the immense tonnages of CO2 generated in the UK.
Impact: scientifically interesting, and chemistry will improve Priority 2/10.
Overburden
To predict the ability of the overburden to provide secondary and tertiary seals, and to predict rapid
and slow pathways of CO2 leakage from a storage site, requires more basic information about the 1-
2km of rock above and around the primary seal. There are geographically and temporally
widespread gaps in such data, especially representing the past 10Ma, and this is site specific to the
different offshore regions of the UK.
Research: basic logging whilst drilling of rock sequences is needed, combined with samples on which
to make laboratory measurements of sediment properties.
105
Impact: fundamental data to improve retention modeling Priority 9/10.
Seal in Overburden
Although primary seals are conceptually understood, the multiple secondary seals to promote
retention and dispersion of any leaked CO2 are poorly established. This has large gaps of basic data
on subsurface temperature, rock physics, critical stress, chemical reactivity, 3D regional geometry,
effective permeability, coupling to reservoir
Research: Additional logging data. Valuable special core samples from 0.1-2km for laboratory
measurements.
Impact Improved rock properties for modelling of CO2 retention Priority 8/10.
Reservoir
The reservoir holds liquid CO2. That will gradually dissolve into pore water. Many and varied
geochemical geophysical and fluid effects influence CO2 in the reservoir. Present understanding and
simulations are based on derivatives from hydrocarbon approaches, together with some softwares
for prediction, which are specific to CO2. Inevitably there is scope for more research.
Fundamental rock properties to CO2 are poorly quantified or understood, e.g. relative permeability
to CO2-water-brine-diverse hydrocarbons in different pore systems; mineral wettability;
microbiological effects. Uncertain implications for fluid pathways at pore scale, swept area, residual
saturation values; linked thermal and mechanical effects on reservoir; dissolution rates; geochemical
reaction rates. Consequently, it is difficult to predict pressure pulse magnitudes, duration,
geographic extent and rate of decay.
Migration modeling of CO2 flow through reservoirs has focused on sandstones in the UK, with
(presumably) carbonate work at IC. Dual porosity networks in CO2 prediction are poorly
investigated, in sandstones or carbonates. The effect of aquifer geometry on prediction is
understood to be crucial, yet precise information and case studies are lacking on: top reservoir
micro-trapping, Dietz tongues around injection sites, up-dip tongue fingering, or up-dip
displacement of deep saline water. Simulation of regional aquifers is crude, due to lack of detailed
data and lack of computer resource time, with deterministic software.
Research: Laboratory studies of basic rock properties, validation by deliberative field or test injection
large scale experiments. Improved modeling to understand and quantify processes, with modular
improvements to open-source software. Are capillary or D’arcy flow assumptions significant?
Linkage to regional models for pressure prediction, and increased resolution inputs of reservoir
bounding geometry and internal inhomogeneity. New approaches to rapid simulation of regional
aquifers to produce fit-for-regulation results.
Impact Improved modeling of CO2 within reservoir and future-time migration physically, and in
pressure, especially for regional aquifers. Priority 10/10.
Storage Assessment Methods
Different States and continents have made individual assessments of storage capacity. These all use
different sets of assumptions or constraints. International collaborations could produce better
convergence and agreement. This is particularly important across the North Sea.
106
Research: Compare protocols internationally; understanding of definitions of maximum storage
capacity – theoretical or engineered; treatment of limitations by pressure, critical stress induced
earthquakes; rock fracture pressure; engineered interventions – geo-steering or formation
production for overpressure relief. North Sea and Irish Sea cross-border harmonisation.
Impact Harmonised, or inter-convertible storage resource estimates; protocols for downgrading by
effects of geological structure, induced fracturing, pressure, sweep efficiency, water composition,
engineered interventions Priority 6/10.
Remediation of Leakage Risk (through faults or seal)
How will leaks be detected (multiple methods, site specific). If leakage occurs through a primary seal,
or through induced fracturing or faulting, does that need to be remediated? How will leaks be
remediated ? What effect does that have on a risk assessment of P50 or P10 leakage probability?
Research: Work with industrial partners to understand intersection of natural process rates (link to
environment), with engineered interventions to remediate. Use of reservoir properties to predict
maximum leakage (finance).
Impact Evidence based public, political, and financial assurance of retention tonnages Priority 9/10.
Improved Oil Recovery
Injection of CO2 can potentially improve oil recovery by 5-25% of the original oil in place. This is a
substantial cost offset on the expense of the entire CCS project, but has never been achieved
commercially offshore. Many of the reservoir principles are understood from USA experience with
onshore EOR.
Research: Understanding of commercial propositions and CO2 storage reliability.
Impact Confidence in permitting CO2-EOR under CCS Directive Priority 5/10.
Trapping Integrity
Pathways of rapid leakage can be induced by CO2 flow up prior faults. Overpressure haloes around
injection sites, even tiny increases 50km distant, can induce microseismic tremors, or may
infrequently induce larger earthquakes. Greater reservoir pressures certainly hydrofracture the
reservoir and seal. Sealing capacity of faults for fluid CO2 and mixtures poorly known.
Research: Principles are understood, but investigate the application to UK.
Impact Important, to defuse any adverse perceptions by publics Priority 5/10.
Natural and Subsurface Analogues
Natural analogues exist worldwide for CO2 retention through geological timescales. These can
demonstrate and quantify many of the aspects discussed.
Test injection sites exist on several continents, but none in the UK, Such controlled experiments are
very useful to enable field measurement of many of the aspects discussed, develop and test drilling
methods, and especially to test predictions against measurement in extremely well monitored sites.
The UK has no domestic test site, but should, and could partner with overseas experiments.
107
Research: testing tools and principles. Impact vital for trading. Priority 7/10.
Single User and Multiuser Sites
Much conceptualization of storage has been with “AtoB” projects. These are expensive. Cost
reduction could be achieved by MultiUser sites, where one trunk pipeline accesses several storage
reservoirs at different levels, or several sites within one regional aquifer. Contrast this with multiple
other AtoB projects.
Research: Investigate pressure interference or trespass of CO2 plume into another storage complex
licence; investigate the application to UK, to identify which regions offshore have diverse and
resilient high tonnage storage.
Impact Shared costs of appraisal, pipes or monitoring Priority 9/10.
Damage or Benefit to Incumbent and Future Hydrocarbon Production
CO2 storage proposals have been made to incumbent hydrocarbon operators, they have replied to
with vigour and threats of consequences. There is certainly a perception that commercial damage or
difficulty could result.
Research: Investigate pressure interference or trespass of CO2 plume into another offshore licenced
areas; investigate the application to UK, to identify which regions offshore have diverse and resilient
high tonnage storage. And which regions may have no hydrocarbons, but are geologically poorly
tested.
Impact Important to demonstrate impartial desk study Priority 9/10.
Outreach and Education
Deep geological storage is perennially not understood by UK publics. More education is needed.
Ideally a few questions, with comments each time – led by an experienced researcher. Leakage,
durability and catastrophe are themes.
Research: Storage is a particular fear for CCS, and wrapped up with anything in the subsurface –
radioactive waste, shale gas or mining, so needs technically understandable communication to the
relevant publics.
Impact Vital for local stakeholders and listening NGO Priority 8/10.
INTEGRATING ACTIONS
Storage CCS has numerous sub-topics listed above. The interaction of these is important, so a
sensible way to investigate may not be through segmented projects, but through case studies or site
studies, which can reveal the links.
• Reservoir and basin modelling as an integrating action
• Engineered small test sites as integrating action
• Natural analogues as integrating action
• DECC competition site studies as integrating action
• Deterministic drilling of North Sea gaps as an integrating action
• Database of CCS storage as an integrating action
108
Ecosystems and Environmental Impact
Jerry Blackford (and Tom Vance)
This document aims to help maximise the future impacts from CCS research by identifying priority
areas of environmental research directly relating to CCS. In preparation of this document, input was
sought from academics active in environmental CCS research together with the following stake
holders: MMO, Crown Estate, Greenpeace, Natural England, DECC, IEAGHG and SEPA. To date,
responses from these parties have been minimal, however this living document will be updated as
new information becomes available.
The following text describes environmental CCS research priorities focussing on necessary impacts
and research outputs rather than methods. Currently these areas are not ranked in terms of
importance, and research in some areas is on-going but not complete or fully funded. The outputs
described here address the CCS critical areas of public perception and environmental safety,
monitoring for verification and regulation.
Marine
A. Collation of baseline and time series biogeochemical data describing proposed CCS sites
Output: Considerable data describing chemical, biological and physical parameters in UK shelf seas
relevant to CCS is available, but fragmented. Collating this data and presenting it in an accessible
format, with a focus on variables that are expected to be influenced by CCS activity, would provide a
cost effective and useful tool to aid site selection and would assist in the detection of environmental
change resulting from CCS activity.
Output: In order to recognise and quantify potential impacts on marine ecosystems, site specific
baseline natural biological variability must first be established. This baseline allows ‘abnormal’
ecological change to be detected and put in context of natural variability and impacts from other
drivers. Such variability can be significant and multiscale. Criteria and methods for site specific
surveys need to be established to ensure that information gathered is sufficient whilst remaining
tractable.
B. Comparison of carbonate system variation from natural processes and CCS leakage
scenarios.
Output: in order to effectively monitor for changes in carbonate system parameters (pH, pCO2 and
DIC) produced by leakage from proposed CCS sites, baseline natural carbonate parameter variability
must first be established. This baseline allows further carbonate parameter change to be detected
and compared with normal variability, which is often significant over a range of temporal and spatial
scales.
Output: In order to detect changes from baseline variability that can be attributed to CCS leakage,
the threshold of change that different leakage scenarios are likely to generate needs to be
established. These threshold changes then act as indicators of environmental change resulting from
CCS activity.
C. Understand the tolerance of marine ecosystems to acute pH variability.
Output: Models of seawater pH surrounding artificial CCS leakage scenarios describe very low pH
water masses being driven around epicentre point sources by ocean tides. This situation would
result in benthic organisms experiencing transient exposure to severe low pH conditions. Most
biological research to date has focused on measuring responses of marine organisms to continuous
non-variable low pH -treatments rather than transient conditions. Understanding biological
109
responses to transient low pH conditions is a requirement to fully quantify the environmental
consequences of catastrophic CCS leakage events.
D. Development of efficient and robust tools to enable monitoring of marine environments.
Output: Given the challenges of complex natural variability and leakage plumes, operation tools that
can effectively monitor large areas of sea with remote communication are required. Additionally
‘smart’ analytical processes that can detect a leakage signal from background noise would
significantly decrease the risks of false positives.
E. Quantify the environmental implications of large scale hypersaline discharge from saline
aquifers
Output: CCS activity in saline aquifers could result in the large scale release of hypersaline water.
Currently, very little research has focused on predicting the environmental impacts of relatively
rapid hypersaline discharge into marine environments on the scale likely to occur as a result of CCS
activity. The environmental implications of hypersaline discharge should be investigated before
consideration of saline aquifers as storage reservoirs.
Geological
F. Determine spatial, temporal and biogeochemical characteristics of different CCS leakage
scenarios.
Outputs: In order to ensure that environmental CCS research objectives are scaled appropriately, it
is a priority to understand the likely range of leakage events, from small scale chronic seepage to
large scale catastrophic containment failure. International consistency would benefit from a
recognised nomenclature for CCS leak scenarios. Equally important is an understanding of the full
chemical composition of the leakage gas/liquid in order to predict the dispersal, bioavailability and
persistence of toxic compounds.
G. Understand how microbial ecology in spent hydrocarbon reservoirs responds to the
introduction of new carbon sources resulting from CCS activity.
Outputs: Microbial ecology in active oil and gas reservoirs can limit production rates and generate
severe human health risks. To date, the consequences of re-introducing a carbon rich source into
disused hydrocarbon reservoirs is not fully understood. Ensuing microbial action has the potential to
compromise reservoir integrity and produce undesirable compounds from microbial metabolic
activity. Understanding microbial ecology in disused hydrocarbon reservoirs is a requirement before
the full long term environmental implications of CCS activity can be quantified.
Terrestrial
H. Gas dispersion following leakage events.
Outputs: Low lying pockets of carbon dioxide following terrestrial leakage events pose potential
human health risks. In order to quantify and reduce this risk, carbon dioxide dispersal and
accumulation in terrestrial (including built) environments should be assessed to provide best
practice for selecting routes for gas transport infrastructure and monitoring systems. Monitoring
could include sensor or vegetation impact recognition.
I. Quantify the implications for human health and environment from amines used in capture
process.
Outputs: Amine based capture processes have the potential to release toxic amines to the
atmosphere with potential to pose a risk to human health and the terrestrial environment. There is a
need to quantify release scenarios and determine the resulting persistence and toxicity leaked gases.
110
General
J. National facilities for impact and monitoring studies.
Outputs: Facilities that allow for realistic release of CO2 into real world environments have potential
utility for the testing of monitoring systems and studying impacts. Recent CCS research activity has
produced different CCS research infrastructure facilitates, such as the QICS release site in Oban,
Scotland and the ASGARD site in Nottingham. Many of these facilities have high set up costs and
time limited funding for specific projects, but would still be capable of further activity for a new
generation of experiments to address high priority research areas. Re-using existing CCS research
infrastructure would provide a cost effective way of beginning to address some of the research
priorities described in this document, in particular testing monitoring systems and impact studies.
K. Transfer of environmental assessment and knowledge into effective legislation.
Outputs: Currently there are several strands of environmental research on-going, relevant to CCS.
However an effective mechanism by which to transfer the resulting knowledge into the realm of
legislation is missing, currently relying on project specific knowledge transfer ambitions. A coherent,
international facilitation of this process would prove beneficial. For example the transboundary
movement of CO2 streams (where the exporter retains legal responsibility) is a highly relevant
concern.
111
Public Acceptability and Social
Simon Shackley (and Leslie Mabon)
State of the Art
As a first step to considering pathways to impact, it is important to get a sense of what the baseline
of public perceptions research is in terms of research activity and existing impacts. Social science
research on public perceptions of CCS in the UK has thus far focused on three key areas:
• Qualitative research, centered on interviews, focus groups and direct interaction. The aim of
such research is generally to look at how publics talk about CCS and get a handle on the
contexts that shape publics’ perceptions of CCS – in such approaches, the researcher can ask
questions and probe more deeply to get information. The Tyndall Centre studies in various
cities were cited in the IPCC Special Report on CCS (2005), and in House of Commons
PostNote 238 (2005);
• Research based on questionnaires in order to assess how communication of relevant
information shapes people’s opinions. In other words, how do people’s views change after
they have received information about CCS? The annual surveys carried out by Reiner and
team at Cambridge aim to address some of these issues. The GCCSI Large Group Process in
Edinburgh also included a questionnaire element, and its report (Howell et al, 2012) was
launched on the GCCSI website in April 2012;
• Analysis and meta-analysis of case studies. Such work analyses real-world CCS
demonstration and deployments (as well as other analogous technologies) with the aim of
evaluating the efficacy of public engagement strategies. The review carried out by
Hammond and Shackley (2010) and the work of the NearCO2 project (Desbarats et al, 2010)
are both widely cited in the academic CCS literature.
What are the Priorities for CCS Public Perceptions Research?
A key issue requiring further exploration surrounds rationales for CCS. The most common
justification for CCS presented to publics thus far begins with the problem of climate change,
proceeding to the need for deep cuts in anthropogenic CO2 emissions before moving onto CCS as a
vital piece of technology in delivering these reductions. However, recent public perceptions work
(e.g. GCCSI Large Group Process, SiteChar Moray case study, UKERC work by Cardiff) suggests that
some people may never accept the anthropogenic climate change argument, or that even if they do,
they may not accept that CCS is the most effective way to mitigate climate change – they may
instead argue for renewable energy sources or behavioural change. There is thus a need to explore
more fully how publics perceive different rationales for CCS. These could include, for example,
enhanced oil recovery (EOR), energy security, job creation or ocean acidification.
Related to the above is the value in developing quantitative modelling approaches, for example
structural equation modelling. Such methodologies could explore the extent to which publics’
perceptions of CCS are related to issues like knowledge of climate change, belief that carbon cuts are
necessary and so on. The aim would be to go beyond descriptive statistics and start to tackle issues
of causation, dependency etc. These methods using survey data could address some of the same
questions as qualitative techniques, therefore potentially allowing triangulation – and thus
reinforcement - of data.
112
A second open area is the heterogeneity of CCS projects. Much work to date has engaged to only a
very limited extent with the differences that can arise at the capture (e.g. oxyfuel/pre-/post-
coumbustion), transport (e.g. pipeline/ship) or storage (e.g. offshore/onshore) stages. Whilst the
presentation of the CCS chain to the publics has perhaps been necessarily broad due to the lack of
real-world projects and the technical complexity involved, it is still vital to remain open to the
possibility that different forms of CCS may be perceived differently. The controversy at Barendrecht
versus the offshore storage of the ROAD project in the Netherlands clearly suggests the need for
some systematic comparative work between offshore and onshore storage. Given empirical work
that also hints at publics negatively perceiving CCS due to its fossil fuel connotations (Pidgeon et al,
r012), further enquiry into public perceptions of fossil-fuel CCS versus BECCS may be valuable. An
associated issue is public perceptions of the discourse of storage. There is a small but burgeoning
body of empirical work to suggest publics do not always see CO2 as a problem, instead viewing it as
an opportunity. The destination or fate of captured CO2 may thus be a key factor shaping public
perceptions of carbon capture and transport. For instance, public perceptions could be changed if
captured CO2 is to be used for agriculture or material production. At a more philosophical level,
publics have also expressed concern over the psychological effects of storing CO2 – what would the
psychological effects on society be if we were to view the need to ‘store’ CO2 as the result of our
failure to meet emissions cuts through behavioural change?
A third area warranting systematic enquiry pertains to the management of public expectations in
the engagement and deployment process. Work carried out by researchers in the USA (Bradbury et
al 2009) suggests that communities who perceive they have been treated unfairly in the past are
more likely to be opposed to CCS developments. Outside of CCS, there are numerous examples of
public perceptions of projects turning negative as costs rise and projected jobs fall. A key challenge
for public perceptions research could thus be to consider how public expectations of all aspects of
CCS - economic benefits, job creation, climate change mitigation potential, what can be achieved
through participation in the engagement process etc – can be managed so as to avoid
disappointment, frustration and potential hostility at later dates. A possible outcome of this might
be a set of good practice guidelines for CCS public engagement work, which would seek to avoid
some of this disappointment and its associated problems. Conversely, what might the role of the
public be in the emergence of ‘clumsy’ solutions that allow a range of standpoints to work together?
The Challenge of Proper, Long-term Impact Assessment
Given its focus on trying to understand the messy and sometimes seemingly contradictory ways in
which society works, social science is in a very good place to acknowledge the difficulties in trying to
accurately measure impacts! On one hand, impacts can be traced to a limited extent through formal
techniques. These may include measuring citations in non-social science/non-energy journals,
tracking citations in governmental/NGO publications, and the tracking of
diagrams/graphs/schematics as a way of following the flow of ideas. The distribution of survey
questionnaires to academics and stakeholders can help to give insight into what research areas are
of most benefit to stakeholders, and providing space for respondents to write comments can give
even more explanatory insight.
Nonetheless, this perhaps only goes some way to measuring and assessing impacts. What
techniques such as those listed above cannot do is track the development of ideas planted through
informal interaction and expanded over long periods of time, or pinpoint the role of individuals in
113
consensus emerging among a particular community. Perhaps more pertinently, such approaches also
cannot get at the confidential but very influential information given at key moments, nor can they
necessarily track our impacts outside of the CCS community.
One potential way round this is to apply the tools and techniques of social science to the challenge
of assessing impact itself – almost treating the impact assessment as a piece of social science
research in its own right! This could involve interviews with stakeholders (under conditions of
confidentiality/anonymity if required), discussion groups, or ethnographic observation. However, the
time and resource commitments required to do this in a thorough and comprehensive manner
would not be inconsiderable
114
Financing, Policy and Deployment
David Reiner
In early June, the Cambridge Centre for Carbon Capture and Storage and the Electricity Policy
Research Group (EPRG) conducted a stakeholder survey to identify research gaps in the areas of
policy, economics and financing of CCS. The survey was distributed to the EPRG/C4S mailing list
(300+ stakeholders drawn from policy, economics and financing experts in business, government
and academia – the vast majority of these stakeholders have wider interests in energy and electricity
economics and policy rather than CCS per se). Over the period 7-22 June we received 53 responses
in total. Based on the results of this survey together with outcomes from other stakeholder
consultations this brief will outline recommendations regarding priority areas of research that would
improve knowledge of the economics, finance and policy of CCS.
In general, our stakeholder community believe that CCS deployment in the UK will increase gradually
over the coming decades. The majority of respondents indicated that by 2030 CCS will have at least
one plant, but less than 5% of the UK’s electricity generation (i.e. roughly 3-4 GW), while by 2050,
the majority of respondents (62%) believe that CCS will have between a 5% and 20% share of UK
electricity generation.
Almost all respondents (91%) feel that financing of CCS is a barrier to a large-scale deployment of
CCS; likewise, the policy framework (88% of respondents) and legal and regulatory issues (83%) are
considered to be at least moderate barriers to full scale CCS roll-out. Our stakeholders feel that the
following areas of CCS research are the most poorly understood: (i) impact on ecosystems and
environment, (ii) public acceptability, (iii) CCS systems integration, (iv) CO2 storage, and (v) policy,
economics and finance. Given their backgrounds, our stakeholders felt less qualified to answer
questions about the technical state of knowledge, particularly, with regard to capture technologies.
Several expressed the view that CO2 for EOR and transportation of captured CO2 are quite well
understood areas of CCS research.
More specifically, we asked stakeholders to indicate what are the priority areas for CCS research to
focus on over the next 5 years in order to improve the knowledge about CCS policy, economics and
finance. We listed 16 economics and finance topics and below are the top 8 priority areas according
to our stakeholders:
1. Economics of the whole CCS value chain (34%)
2. Insurance and risk management of end of CCS life cycle (33%)
3. Policy uncertainties associated with regulation, taxation and energy; (32%)
4. Policy support mechanisms (28%)
5. Economics and financing of CCS for industrial applications (27%)
6. Industrial policy and macroeconomic issues related to CCS (25%)
7. Allocation of public funding for CCS research (25%)
8. Economics of CCS hubs or clusters (25%)
115
We also asked the stakeholders to indicate the most effective pathways to disseminate CCS research
and knowledge. According to our survey, the most effective pathways to disseminate CCS research
and knowledge are:
1. Discussions with individual academic researchers
2. Small workshops
3. Policy (non-technical) papers
4. Individual company briefings
5. Research reports
At the end of the survey we also asked our stakeholders to comment on any aspect of CCS research
and they were free to express their opinions and suggestions. We received 14 free text responses,
which are summarised in the attached power point presentation.
Drawing on the results of the survey, we recommend the following three areas within the policy,
economics and finance of CCS research stream that would have an impact on both the practice of
CCS investment and our understanding of CCS economics and finance.
1) Economic modelling of the whole CCS infrastructure system (from the plant with capture
through transport and storage) and its interactions with the UK electricity market. This topic
could address how CCS, as a system, will interact with the UK electricity market and the
effects of these interactions on: (i) the developments of different capture technologies, and
(ii) investment in and operation of networks of CO2 pipelines across the UK.
If addressed properly, this area of research will have significant impact on the economics
and financing of CCS in two ways:
First, it will improve our understanding in the following areas: (i) how electricity system in
the UK will operate if CCS is assumed to be rolled out at a large scale, (ii) interactions of the
CCS system with electricity demand uncertainties and with energy policy uncertainties (such
as support mechanism and wider energy policy objectives), and (iii) optimal allocation of
public funding for different carbon capture technologies, given uncertain future
development of the UK’s energy mix and policy objectives.
Second, research in this area would broaden our understanding of the economics of CCS
system integration and together with other UKCCSRC priority research areas (notably the
systems, transport and storage themes) could create synergies within UKCCSRC’s overall
research portfolio.
2) Options and flexibility analysis. Developing an economic framework to compare different
carbon capture technologies could help improve our understanding of project financing from
the investor and lender points of view. The framework should be able to incorporate and
properly value strategic optionalities embedded in each capture technology and thereby
move beyond a technology-by-technology assessment, allowing for different models of
uncertainties. It will be important to include the value of flexibility of these technologies in
response to demand and different dispatch requirements of the electricity system.
116
3) Impacts on national competitiveness. An economic model together with a valuation
framework is required to understand the impact of public funding of CCS research and the
potential impact of the growth in the UK’s CCS industry on the competitiveness of its
national economy. The CCS industry in the UK could have positive externalities for the whole
economy and we need to properly understand and value these externalities. Doing so will
broaden our knowledge about the benefits of funding CCS research beyond Government’s
efforts to decarbonise the electricity system (including the CCS industry’s contribution to
overall economic growth and competitiveness and the potential benefits of CCS knowledge
transfer to other economies).
117
CCS Construction Materials
John Oakey
This cross-cutting theme focuses on the components and structures involved and their engineering
requirements to put CCS technologies into practice. The issues addressed range between the
engineering of new components to produce reliable and efficient systems to the impacts that CCS
components have when integrated into existing plants. As such, the focus of this theme extends
beyond the components directly involved in the capture, transport and storage of CO2, to those that
need to provide improved performance or are adversely affected by new CCS components, whether
introduced into newly engineered power systems or retrofitted with existing hardware, e.g. gas
turbines or pipelines.
Challenges relevant to this theme arise across all the CO2 capture options and in the transport of CO2
up to the point of the injection wells, but less so in sub-seabed storage. A key example would be, for
new coal or gas fired power plants, the need to ensure that maximum efficiencies and reliabilities
are maintained when post-combustion capture is added, while at the same time not restricting the
use of co-firing in coal plants or the use of bio- and waste- derived gases in gas turbine plants. This
approach has been underpinning the strategies employed in the UK and across Europe in recent
years. For example, by ensuring that any new PF coal plants will operate at advanced steam
conditions (e.g. >650oC steam), the impact of adding post-combustion capture on overall efficiency
and minimising the impact on the cost of electricity, as well as retaining flexibility to continue to co-
fire biomass, meeting all safety and regulatory requirements and delivering at least equivalent
RAMO (reliability, availability, maintainability and operability) performance to current plants.
A further example would be the impact of introducing pre-combustion capture into an IGCC
(integrated combined cycle gasification) plant, where the choice of pre-combustion technology will
have a substantial impact on the performance of the gas turbine used. Current IGCC schemes use
significantly de-rated gas turbines to accommodate the combustion characteristics of syngas and the
downstream effects of this on hot gas path components (e.g. through increased heat flux). Achieving
the levels of performance found with natural gas-fired gas turbines in IGCC schemes, while using H2-
rich syngas will minimise the overall efficiency impacts and will limit increases in the cost of
electricity. This challenge is further complicated by the sensitivity of gas turbine operability and
reliability to gas contaminants. Physical solvent methods of capture will leave a different blend on
contaminants in the H2-rich syngas to approaches using compression or membrane approaches.
As a result, it is necessary to review each potential CCS scheme and its component parts in order to
determine the priority challenges and impacts. In generic terms, this theme considers the
manufacture, materials and monitoring needs of components in order for them to perform as
required, to be reliable in service and repairable, while at the same time being compliant with
engineering design standards and meeting all necessary safety requirements. The following listing of
priority challenges illustrates the breadth of this theme and its links with disciplines outside the
immediate CCS area.
118
Priority Challenges
Post-combustion – coal PF plants:
i) Advanced materials, manufacturing methods, life prediction methods and in-service
process/component monitoring and for USC boilers, pipework and steam turbines
to achieve efficiencies required to offset the penalties when using post
combustion amine and other capture technologies.
ii) Corrosion resistant superheater and water wall materials/coatings to resist
enhanced corrosivity when co-firing with biomass, including improved process and
component monitoring.
iii) RAMO of amine and other post-combustion capture plants, corrosion potential
assessment, effects of flue gas and other impurities and monitoring.
Post-combustion – natural gas CCGT:
i) RAMO effects of changed environments on combustion and turbine hot gas path
components due to exhaust gas recycle, steam additions, etc. used to increase
exhaust gas CO2 concentrations to reduce capture costs.
ii) RAMO of amine and other post-combustion capture plants, corrosion potential
assessment, effects of flue gas and other impurities and monitoring.
Pre-combustion – coal IGCC:
i) Condition and process monitoring of the gasification/gas clean-up hot gas path for
reliable operation, including the impacts of the introduction of various pre-
combustion CO2 capture approaches.
ii) Effects of combustion of H2-rich syngas on gas turbine materials and RAMO with
different pre-combustion capture processes.
iii) New corrosion resistant bond-coats and thermal barrier coatings.
iv) H2-rich syngas monitoring - H2 content, impurities, etc.
Oxy-firing in coal PF plants:
i) Improved understanding and monitoring of the effects of varying levels and
methods of oxy-combustion on boiler environments and ash behaviour to minimise
fouling and corrosion effects.
ii) Corrosion resistant superheater and water wall materials/coatings to resist
enhanced corrosivity when oxy-firing and allow continued co-firing with biomass,
including improved process and component monitoring.
Oxy-firing in coal/biomass/waste CFB plants:
i) Improved understanding of the potential for erosion-corrosion and fouling due to
the novel process environments and high solids loadings.
Solid looping cycles:
i) Improved understanding of the potential for erosion-corrosion and fouling due to
the novel process environments and high solids loadings.
119
CO2 transport pipelines and CO2 injection sea-bed engineering and wells:
i) Understanding the effects of dense phase CO2 transport, operating cycles and
impurity levels on pipeline materials, inhibitors, and compressor materials, seals,
etc.
ii) Impacts of dense phase CO2 transport and variable/intermittent operation on sea-
bed pipeline, christmas tree, control/monitoring umbilicals and tie-backs, etc.
materials and designs, and including condition and process monitoring to ensure
reliable and safe operation. Consideration of likely failure modes, fail-safe strategies
and leakage monitoring.
120
CO2 Properties
Martin Trusler
The processes of carbon capture, transportation and geological storage involve handling CO2, almost
always as a component of a mixture, in a very wide range of conditions under which it has numerous
and complex interactions with other substances. In order to design effective, efficient and secure
processes for CCS, it is essential to have adequate knowledge of the physical and chemical
properties of the various mixtures in which CO2 is a component. This is an underpinning theme
cutting across all aspects of CCS technology including capture, purification, compression,
transportation (by pipeline or tanker), injection and long-term storage. The range of thermodynamic
conditions is vast: in temperature, from below -50°C to more than 1000°C and in pressures from
below atmospheric to as much as 1000 bar. The range of mixtures is equally extensive in terms of
both the concentration of CO2 and the number of other chemical components with which the CO2 is
mixed. Tackling this problem calls for a scientifically valid approach in which a substantial body of
experimental data and one or more well-founded theoretical approaches combine to provide
systematic and validated modelling tools, suitable for engineering applications.
The thermophysical properties of CO2 as a pure substance are well understood and reliable
modelling tools are available for engineering purposes. Of course, much is known about the
properties of CO2-containing mixtures but, because of diversity of composition, temperature and
pressure, it is not presently possible to predict all relevant properties under all relevant conditions
with the necessary confidence. Thus, further research into CO2 mixture properties is required. The
RAPID table identifies research areas having potential impact in matrix form by application area and
property type. The areas of application are broken down into the three major categories of capture,
transportation and geological storage, with appropriate sub-categories. Properties are classified as
bulk thermodynamic properties (including phase equilibria and the thermodynamic properties of
homogeneous phases), bulk transport properties (viscosity, thermal conductivity etc), interfacial
properties (surface/interfacial tension, contact angle, wettability) and chemical properties (pH,
reactivity etc).
Capture
In solvent-based post-combustion CO2 capture, the areas of highest potential impact are probably in
characterising the vapour-liquid equilibria (VLE) of CO2 with aqueous amine systems other than
those most commonly used today. Other areas of potential impact include assembling the data and
models required to fully characterise mass transfer in absorbers and strippers on a microscopic
scale, including transport properties (viscosity and diffusion coefficients) and interfacial properties
(interfacial tension and wettability). These properties are required for real systems including
impurities such as those present in the CO2 streams and those that arise from degradation of the
solvents. Finally, enthalpic effects have been neglected and high-quality calorimetric studies of CO2
absoprtion/desorption in relevant solvents would have significant impact.
In the area of pre-combustion capture, the thermodynamics of synthesis gas (syngas) are key
including topics such as low-temperature VLE of hydrogen-rich syngas and the removal of acid-gas
121
impurities by solvents and other processes. Although these are classical areas, incremental
improvements in understanding the basic thermodynamics can have significant impact.
In relation to oxy-fired combustion, the key issue from a properties point of view is the process of
CO2 cleanup. Significant impact could follow from a better understanding of the low-temperature
VLE of typical oxy-fuel flue gases and thermodynamic aspects of the processes for removal of
oxygen, inerts and acid-gas impurities prior to and/or in the compression train.
Transport
In pipeline storage, there are two key areas in which CO2-property research can have significant
impact. The first relates to the phase behaviour of the slightly impure CO2 stream; this needs to be
understood in order to avoid unintended two-phase flow. The second area of potential impact
concerns the thermodynamic data necessary to support fiscal-quality metering of CO2 flows,
primarily the density. Since pipeline operating conditions could, in some circumstances, be near to
the mixture critical point, the prediction of density for impure CO2 streams is not straight forward.
Thus both new data and improved models are called for.
Storage
Geological storage will bring CO2 into a high-temperature high-pressure environment in which it will
contact brines and possibly hydrocarbons within the pore space of possibly reactive reservoir rocks.
Here, the greatest impact may come from tackling difficult measurement problems, such as
interfacial properties, pH and chemical interactions between brines and reservoir minerals in the
presence of dissolved CO2. Better understanding of CO2 solubility in reservoir fluids and of the onset
of flow-assurance issues such as asphaltene deposition would also have great impact. Some of the
simplest properties, such as density and viscosity changes that occur when CO2 dissolves in reservoir
fluids, need to be better understood and addressing these issues will have impact in terms of
increasing confidence in predicting the long-term fate of CO2 underground.
Integration of Properties Research
The impact of UK CCS research in the area of CO2 properties will be maximised by integrating the
effort in both the organisational and scientific senses. In respect of the latter, it is essential to
combine excellent experimental work with advanced property modelling with the ultimate aim of
developing a comprehensive and consistent approach that can be applied with confidence.
122
Appendix 3: Overall Research Needs for CCS
A number of Research Area Champions have also assessed overall research needs more widely in
single page summaries.
Research Area Champions (RACs) were asked to review the priorities set out by all RACs for UKCCSRC
theme areas and comment on overall priorities for CCS. RACs, informed by the wider CCS
community, consider CCS as a whole and highlight links between themes, thus identifying
overarching and shared priorities. Comments may also reinforce the views on priorities in certain
theme areas or point out the need for inclusion (or greater emphasis) of certain priorities.
Contents:
CCS Priorities Summary (CCS Systems) ............................................................................123
Overall CCS Priorities (Oxyfuel) ........................................................................................125
Comments on Priorities and Links to the High Temperature Looping Theme ................. 127
Research Challenges and Priorities for CCS (Industrial Capture) ..................................... 129
Comments on Priorities and Links to the Transport Theme ............................................ 131
CCS Priorities Summary (Monitoring R&D) ...................................................................... 133
CCS Priorities Summary (Site Leasing and Regulation) .....................................................134
Comments on Priorities and Links to the Environment Theme ........................................135
Overall Priorities for CCS (Public Perceptions) ................................................................. 136
Policy, Economics and Finance Theme Links to Priority Areas ......................................... 137
Comments on Priorities and Links to the CO2 Properties Theme ..................................... 139
123
CCS Priorities Summary (CCS Systems Perspective)
CCS Systems, Nilay Shah
Key:
� priorities that particularly resonate with me
� priorities that I feel might have been emphasised more
Materials
� flexible temperature ranges and flexible H2 content
� corrosion/erosion effects in high T looping cycles
� effects of trace elements (esp metals) from gasification on downstream materials; what is
the right level of abatement?
� More on optimal materials (elastomers? etc) for seals etc
Systems
� Model-based technology evaluation platform
� Model-based scale-up from lab and pilot plant
� Operability and safety analysis; flexibility analysis
Adsorption and membranes
� Flexible facility to test different materials
� Cost engineering and new manufacturing techniques
High T cycles
� Pilot testing platform
� Effective heat transfer
CO2 properties
� Mixture properties over a wide range of T, P and species
� CO2-solvent interactions prediction esp association/dissociation energy
Capture
� Characterising the performance of a wide range of solvents
� Hybrid systems
� Cryogenic / antisublimation processes with coolth integration?
Transport
� Transport performance dependence on purity
� Pipeline integrity and purity relationship
� Materials vs CO2 composition
124
� Scoping study on ship-based transport (technical, economic, ...)
Storage
� Understanding injectivity and capacity and implications for the upstream part of the chain
� Effect of impurities
� Model-based scale-up from lab and pilot plant
� Pressure behaviour – short and long term
H2/pre combustion capture
� Systems integration and intensification (e.g. sorption enhanced reactions, UCG, ...)
� Model-based scale-up from lab and pilot plant
� Operability and safety analysis; flexibility analysis
Financing and deployment
� Economics across the value chain: how do all participants benefit?
Eco-systems and environmental impact
� Quantifying impacts of solvent degradation products and other non CO2 emissions
� Quantifying long-term impacts of CO2 storage (cf nuclear waste)
Reservoir engineering
� Storage and injection modelling and optimisation
� Well/platform operability and safety analysis; flexibility analysis
Monitoring
� Design of effective, multilayered monitoring strategy
Industrial capture
� Systems integration
� Piloting and testing in key industries
� CO2 utilisation
Site Leasing and regulation/public engagement
What is written looks fine to me; not an area I can critically comment on
125
Overall CCS Priorities (Oxyfuel Perspective)
Oxfuel, Mohamed Pourkashanian and R.T.J Porter
Capture Technology Selection
It is highly likely that the leading capture technologies will all play an important role for the
foreseeable future. However, technology choices may be case specific that depend on a number of
factors, including fuels specifications, scale and the level of required flexibility. These issues may be
addressed by high-level whole-chain techno-economic assessments based on dynamic simulations.
To enable these models, many other areas of modelling will require further development such as the
use of CFD for radiative heat transfer in oxyfuel calculations or the improvement of thermodynamic
models to cope with CO2 phase change in the presence of impurities.
Pathways from Demonstration to Commercial Deployment
Policy considerations are required to encourage the deployment of CCS on a large scale and avoid
“demo to death”. This will involve more cost-effective cluster based approaches with associated
issues relating to initial scale, the co-ordination of different entities, business models, the impact of
impurities on shared transport networks, management of fluctuations and interruptions etc. A driver
for commercial deployment of CCS is EOR which requires site specific feasibility and geological
studies.
Public Perception
Negative public perception of CCS has led to major disruption of projects in a number of countries.
Countering negative perceptions requires both social science (policy, education effective
communication and public liaison strategies etc.) and technical research approaches. Public concern
of technology hazards and reliability may be addressed by whole chain environmental assessments
(a prime example is assessing the formation of nitrosamines from post-combustion capture amines),
storage monitoring strategies that include conclusive demonstration of storage integrity and
alleviate concerns of induced seismicity, and safety testing of materials used to handle CO2 in the
presence of anthropogenic impurities.
High Priority Research Themes on Oxyfuel Capture Technology
Virtual System simulation: The development and validation of the Virtual Dynamic Simulation of the
power plant with CCS capabilities have the potential to significantly reduce the time, capital, and
operational costs required for the development and deployment of novel carbon capture
technologies. The developed software could provide information on the molecular-level dynamics of
carbon capturing materials, and on scale up to explore how this material functions at the device-
level then see how the device functions in a production power plant on a time frame of weeks and
months. The data generated from all recent large scale projects will provide a significant scope for
the validation, assessment and bench marking of the developed software. The validated tool will
provide:
• Quick identification of “proof of concept” via process screening and modelling followed by
design time reduction, intelligent optimization and troubleshooting of new devices and
processes;
• Assess and manage the technical risk in taking new/modified equipment/process from
laboratory-scale to commercial scale;
• Provide operations dynamic simulation and control with real-time applications;
• Provide a platform for supply chain management plant-side optimization;
126
• Provide cost effective approaches for deployment by reducing the number of physical
operational tests required by utilising the virtual system simulation software.
Innovative cycles for GT-CCS technology: The impact of innovative cycles such as Humid Air Turbine
(HAT) and Oxy-HAT on reducing the cost of GT-CCS and research into associated challenges. Another
innovative cycle which requires significant RD&D is oxyfuel, high pressure, supercritical carbon
dioxide cycle (eg Allam Cycle). These types of novel cycles produce pipeline-ready CO2 for
sequestration or use in enhanced oil recovery, without reducing plant efficiency or increasing costs.
Oxy-EOR Captures technology: Investigation into the innovative power system firing NG-CO2-O2 and
separating and collecting pressurized CO2 without adding on a carbon capture system followed by
CO2 subsequently used for enhanced oil recovery.
Conversion to Biomass (Biomass-CCS) – Biomass usage in combustion based power generation is an
enormous research field in its own right to which CCS adds an additional layer of complexity. Some
specific issues include the impact on ash deposition, slagging and fouling, and the development of
fuel feed systems for pre-combustion capture. A number of recent policy & technology roadmaps
highlight the Biomass-CCS as an alternative option (e.g. Biomass-CCS: The Way Forward for Europe, ZEP,
2012 & Committee on Climate Change 2011).
127
Comments on Priorities and Links to the High Temperature Looping Theme
High Temperature Looping, Stuart Scott
In the review of the research priorities document, several links have been identified between the
High temperature looping theme and priorities in other themes. These links are highlighted below:
Second Generation CCS Processes (Links to e.g. Adsorption and Membranes Theme):
High temperature looping represents a broad class of processes which includes chemical looping
(which links with oxyfuel combustion) and carbonate looping. These technologies (along with other
novel technologies, involving membranes, and novel low temperature sorbent systems), aim to
resolve the fundamental issue of the energy penalty associated with the first generation
technologies. Some of these novel capture processes share aspects of fundamental science and
detailed understanding of materials is a common theme, whether the material is a part of an oxygen
transport membrane, an oxide in an oxygen carrier for chemical looping, or a CO2 sorbent. The
importance of testing of materials in realistic process conditions, e.g. using slip streams (as
highlighted in the Adsorption theme) applies equally to high temperature looping. Scale up to
produce material for carbon capture which is both effective, robust and cheap is also required.
Links to Systems, Transport and Storage:
High temperature looping and other more novel technologies for capture are still at an early stage of
development, either at lab, pilot, or first demonstration stage. Some work has been carried out to
understand the benefits of these processes by taking a systems level view, i.e. looking beyond the
plant scale, to interactions with wider economy and other industries. How a full scale system will
operate in practice as part of real energy system, where issues such as flexibility, control etc.. will be
important is less well known than for the first generation technologies. Thus, the true benefit of e.g.
a second generation looping system compared to a first generation technology, which takes into
account how the plants will actually be run over the next 20-50 years is required. The fate of
pollutants in the process, and whether the final CO2 stream is of sufficient purity is of relevance to
the materials, transport and storage themes.
Links to Industrial CCS
For high temperature looping cycles, the “system” is larger than just the electricity supply network
or CO2 supply/capture chain, since looping cycles have important links with industrial capture. The
high temperature of heat rejection from these systems makes heat integration of critical
importance, and also provides opportunities for large cost reductions in capture. Furthermore, the
materials used as sorbents or oxygen donors may themselves be of value, e.g. spent calcium sorbent
from a carbonate looping plant can be used in cement manufacture and iron and other metal oxides
are used as oxygen donors in chemical looping.
Links to Pre-combustion Capture
High temperature looping cycles have been proposed as subunits of pre-combustion systems, with
both carbonate looping (via the sorbent-enhanced shift process) and chemical looping (e.g. the
steam iron process and its variants) able to produce hydrogen.
128
Process Optimisation and Reactor Modelling/Design
High temperature looping cycles are likely to use circulating fluidised systems, or packed beds. The
modelling and design of these systems to allow scale up is common across many themes (e.g.
circulating fluidised bed oxyfuel combustion, packed beds for absorbents).
129
Research Challenges and Priorities for CCS (Industrial Capture Perspective)
Industrial Capture, Paul Fennell and Tamaryn Napp
Carbon Capture and Storage has a crucial role to play in mitigating CO2 emissions and avoiding
dangerous climate change. However, a full-scale integrated CCS plant (not to mention a CCS
network) is highly complex and many different factors need to come together for it to be a
successful venture. Three issues which are pivotal to the wide-scale deployment of CCS and which
impact every stage of the CCS chain are: (i) scale-up design, (ii) flexible operation and (iii) a viable
business case.
CCS plants will have to operate successfully and economically within the future electricity network. It
is likely that there will be limited scope for base load CCS-power generation and CCS will have to
demonstrate flexible operation in order to be viable. All options for flexible operation of different
CO2 capture plants should be explored. The impact of intermittent operation on CO2 capture
performance, pipeline transport, CO2 injection and overall economics needs to be assessed.
CCS is a high-risk venture. It requires large initial capital outlay and there are many uncertainties
surrounding future prices, policies and regulations. The following areas are key:
1. Limitation of business risks: Reduce costs at every point in the process by taking a systems view.
i.e. a techno-economic analysis of a full integrated CCS process in order to identify areas for
optimization. Understand how CCS would operate within the electricity network and the
implications of flexible operation, electricity prices, fuel costs and policies on economic
feasibility.
2. Limitation of legal risks: Development of accurate monitoring and measurement in order to
detect early any indication of geomechanical instability, limit the risk of leakage and obtain legal
insurance. This should be based on a detailed assessment of the impacts on marine, geological
and terrestrial ecosystems and environments as well as an understanding of fault flow
properties and modeling of CO2 migration post injection.
Industrial CCS Links to Other Research Areas
Links to CO2 capture
• Understand how gas components, properties and impurities in industrial CO2 sources impact on
the operation of different CO2 capture processes
• Modification of high temperature solid looping cycles for use with industrial CO2 sources
Links to CCS systems
• Heat integration and optimization modeling of industrial processes with CCS
• Synergies between industry and power generation both through the integration of energy
and material flows
• Possibilities for demand side management at industrial sites with CCS
Links to transport
• Assessment of potential industrial CCS sources and their proximity to both storage sites and
other CO2 sources in order to develop a CO2 transport network. Effects of co-location on CO2
purity – can pipeline specifications be met at lower cost by appropriate mixing of industrial and
power sources of CCS?
130
Links to Materials
• The importance of developing materials enabling high temperature and high H2 content
operation
• Investigation of corrosion/erosion effects in high T looping cycles
Links to High Temperature Looping Cycles
• Co-production of cement, applications of novel looping cycles (developed for power
generation) in other industries. Use of spent materials from CLC and carbonate looping
cycles applied to power generation in industrial processes.
131
Comments on Priorities and Links to the Transport Theme
Transport, Julia Race
In the review of the research priorities document, several links have been identified between the
transport theme and the work being highlighted as priorities in other themes. These links should
strengthen the development of integrated, high priority research areas between themes. These links
are highlighted below:
Links to CO2 Properties
It has been recognised in the RAPID assessment for pipeline and ship based transport that there is an
urgent requirement to be able to model phase and transport behaviour across a range of
temperatures, pressures (and therefore phase) and impurity combinations. This is critical for the
accurate modelling of hydraulics, fracture propagation and outflow and dispersion in particular. In
this respect, the ability to model phase behaviour in the solid phase and around the triple point is
particularly important and it is considered that this should also be included in the work proposed in
the CO2 properties theme. In addition, it is also critical to understand the water solubility behaviour
over a range of temperatures and pressures for CO2-H2O systems containing impurities. Removal of
water is vital in controlling the risk of corrosion, cracking and hydrate formation in a pipeline. It is
recognised that work is being proposed in the CO2 properties theme in brines but the extension of
this work to the CO2-H2O-impurity system is also extremely important.
Links to Systems
Much of the transport specific research has often been conducted in isolation without due reference
to the whole system and an integrated approach needs to be adopted in future. However, one of the
key gaps that has been highlighted in the transport area is the requirement for a robust techno-
economic model which will allow decisions to be made, particularly on transport design and
specification of the CO2 entering the system. This will enable projects to identify where the cost
reductions can be made across the CCS chain – for example, and with respect to the specification of
CO2 purity, more impure streams of CO2 require higher input pressures to the pipeline and therefore
have implications for the design of the pipeline i.e. thicker walled pipe or higher material strengths –
all of which have a cost implication for the pipeline constructor – however, the reduction of impurity
levels has cost implications for the emitter. A model is required to enable these type of decisions to
be made independently on a project basis. This model should include the results of the technical
“transport specific” research already conducted as part of other research projects.
It is noted that the requirement for an economic model across the whole CCS chain is also included
in the Financing, Policy and Deployment theme.
Links to Public Acceptability and Social
One of the areas in which the public will come into contact very visibly with CCS projects is during
the construction phase of pipelines. The engagement of the public along the pipeline right of way is
therefore key in terms of enabling pipeline routes, which have been determined on a design and risk
assessment basis. Methodologies for engaging the public will be key during public consultation
exercises for pipeline routes.
132
Links to Ecosystems and Environmental Impact
The dispersion of CO2 from leaks and ruptures of pipeline onshore and offshore has been identified
as a priority in the transportation theme. This is required principally for the risk assessment process
for routing a pipeline. However, an understanding of the potential longer term effects on flora and
fauna (onshore and offshore) will also be required. It is considered that understanding is limited in
these areas.
133
CCS Priorities Summary (Monitoring R&D Perspective)
Monitoring R&D, Andy Chadwick
Key:
� Priorities that particularly resonate with me (not necessarily lifted directly from the two-
pagers on research priorities within themes).
Systems
� Virtual systems models to optimise full-chain performance for a wide-range of scenarios.
CO2 Properties
� Mixture properties over a wide range of T, P and species [Cross-cuts with Reservoir
Engineering].
� CO2 solubility in reservoirs [Cross-cuts with Reservoir Engineering and Storage].
Transport
� See Monitoring cross-cut.
Storage
� Pressure control and geomechanical stability.
� Verifying performance – what are the acceptance criteria for conformance?
� Fault properties – both in the reservoir (flow barriers) and in the overburden (flow
pathways).
� Dissolution.
Ecosystems and Environmental Impact
� See Monitoring cross-cut.
Reservoir Engineering
� Upscaling and simplified models to optimise resolution on key model parameters.
� CO2 dissolution / convection (key medium-term stabilization process).
Monitoring
� Monitoring for geomechanical instability.
� Quantitative imaging improvements from reservoir to shallow overburden.
� Low-cost monitoring for onshore pipelines – particularly onshore for public acceptance.
[Cross-cuts with Transport, Public Acceptability and Environmental].
N.B. Offshore leakage monitoring covered by current ETI Call.
Industrial Capture
� Generically very important - only CCS can deal with industrial emissions.
Site Leasing and Regulation/Public Engagement
� Leasing issues with respect to conflicts of interest (e.g. stacked reservoirs, other users).
134
CCS Priorities Summary (Site Leasing and Regulation Perspective)
Sam Holloway
Key:
� Priorities that particularly resonate with me.
Systems
� Effects of load following on the downstream CCS chain.
CO2 properties
� Mixture properties over a wide range of T, P and species.
Transport
� Safety and public acceptance issues.
Storage
� Pressure management.
� Geomechanical stability of storage sites.
� Fault properties – both in the reservoir (flow barriers) and in the overburden (flow
pathways).
� The stress field in potential storage areas on the UKCS.
� Remediation issues.
Eco-systems and environmental impact
� Improved modelling of environmental impact of doing nothing about CO2 emissions.
Reservoir engineering
� Application of reservoir engineering techniques to global and regional storage capacity
estimates.
� Coupled flow and geomechanical modelling.
Monitoring
� Monitoring for geomechanical instability.
� Quantitative imaging improvements from reservoir to shallow overburden.
Site Leasing and regulation/public engagement
� Leasing issues with respect to present and future conflicts of interest (e.g. stacked
reservoirs, other users).
� Trans-generational issues.
135
Comments on Priorities and Links to the Environment Theme
Ecosystems and Environmental Impact, Jerry Blackford
Overall Priorities for an Environmental Perspective
CCS poses a range of interlinked engineering and technical challenges ranging from capture to
storage. This sits within overarching requirements of economic viability, health and safety and
environmental protection. Together these three areas contribute to public perception and
acceptability.
From an environment perspective, the overall rationale for CCS is the prevention or mitigation of the
potentially severe environmental (and economic) impacts of climate change. However, experience
with onshore sequestration plans and for example the siting of wind farms demonstrates that more
local environmental concerns can have a significant impact on progress.
In order to reach a wider audience than the core environmental interest groups, linking
environmental to economics is required. The key challenge is to identify pathways by which arising
environmental knowledge can be transferred into appropriate regulation.
Finally, for CCS related environmental research, it is important to maintain a neutral standpoint,
neither advocating nor criticising CCS (or any other carbon mitigation method). This approach has
enabled current research to address a wide range of interested stakeholders, from industry to
environmental campaigners.
The following links other research areas that have been identified. These links should strengthen the
development of integrated, high priority research areas between themes.
Links to Capture
Quantifying impacts of solvent degradation products (especially amines) and other non-CO2
emissions. Here there is a need to review existing knowledge and identify required research.
Transportation
The dispersion of CO2 from leaks and ruptures of pipeline onshore and offshore has been identified
as a priority both in environment and transportation themes. This is required principally for the risk
assessment process for routing a pipeline. However, an understanding of the potential longer term
effects on flora and fauna (onshore and offshore) as well as potential human health issues will also
be required. Some research in both terrestrial and marine environments is ongoing. Aspects relating
to human health could benefit from a review of existing knowledge.
Storage, Site Regulation, Monitoring
In particular the choice of sites would benefit from environmental risk assessments, to ensure that
valuable natural resources are not unduly put at risk. There are key linkages between storage
characterisation / geological monitoring and environmental monitoring. Improved characterisation
of the former would inform approaches to the latter. The issue of saline aquifers as potential storage
sites will require novel environmental impact assessment, not yet considered.
Public Acceptability and Social
Improved certainty in environmental impacts is a key input to public opinion. A strategy for non-
biased dissemination of understanding to a wide audience is necessary.
136
Overall Priorities for CCS (Public Perceptions Perspective)
Public Perceptions, Simon Shackley and Leslie Mabon
Economics, Jobs and Costs
Particularly important here is developing more accurate and realistic figures for the job creation
potential of CCS. Doing so is not only important in terms of garnering national/regional government
support, but also for the management of public expectations so as to avoid disappointment,
frustration and potential hostility at later dates. Input from those with experience of project
management of large infrastructural projects and who are knowledgeable about the personnel
hiring practices of the oil and gas and related sectors could help to develop realistic figures for the
number and type of jobs likely to be created in the UK by CCS.
Management and Governance of Large Technical Systems
This is an area key to the successful implementation of CCS projects, one that could be researched
most effectively via collaboration between engineers, social scientists and others. The field of
science and technology studies (STS) has some useful insights on the management of large technical
systems, for instance relating to the measurement of the flexibility of technologies. The concept of
neo-incrementalism as a technical decision-making strategy (making small steps in development and
planning for learning from experience) also warrants further exploration. Critical input from
engineers, especially those in industry and management consulting, could help to develop both of
these ideas and further their applicability to CCS.
Liability
The issue of future liability for stored CO2 and for the definition of permanent storage/acceptable
leakage rates is crucial. This is a task that involves furthering physical science understanding of the
migration and fate of CO2, and greater legislative clarity. It can also benefit from understanding of
liability issues as a regulatory- or mandated-science type of question. STS has made important
advances in understanding how such types of science for policy differ from ‘normal’ science. There is
also a role for public perceptions work here, in that public acceptance of CCS may to some extent
hinge on the perception of ‘the taxpayer’ being liable for any future events, or for the potential for
leakage;
More Refined Understanding of Uncertainty
Perhaps feeding into the point above about the interface between physical science, governance and
society is a deeper understanding of the different uncertainties surrounding CCS. For instance,
following Wynne (1992), uncertainty could be characterised as risk, uncertainty, indeterminacy,
ignorance etc. The nature of the uncertainty in question could have profound effects for insurers,
governments and indeed publics, all of whom may react very differently to a calculated risk than to,
say, an indeterminacy. A multi-disciplinary dialogue with the aim of building clarity on what we all
mean by ‘uncertainty’ could help to avoid issues further down the line and help us decide what can
be meaningfully quantified and what cannot;
Measuring Impact in a Meaningful Way
There seems to be a broad consensus that the ‘impacts’ of CCS research cannot easily be measured
or quantified. Nonetheless, we believe that applying the tools and techniques of social science
research to the process of impact itself can help to give us a greater understanding of how impacts
are achieved. In other words, looking at how stakeholders (especially developers) draw on the work
of universities could in itself become a social science research project! Confidential interviews or
discussion groups with developers, for example, could refine our understanding of how impacts are
generated.
137
Policy, Economics and Finance Theme Links to Priority Areas
Financing, Policy and Deployment, David Reiner
From the perspective of the policy, economics and finance theme, there is an increasing need,
especially from the finance community, to understand the risk/return profiles of different
generation technologies and CCS configurations given the UK’s wider climate and energy policy. In
this respect, the existence of a handful of capture technologies with different level of maturity and
uncertain understanding of integration of capture, transport and storage just adds another layer of
uncertainties for investors, thereby weakening any assessment of CCS relative to other technologies
(both conventional and “green” ones). Another concern from an economic point of view is that
because UK government support (e.g., the £1bn CCS competition) will choose from amongst
different generation and capture technologies, there is a risk of being locked in to an inferior
technology, given: (i) different capture technologies produce CO2 with different properties which
affect the design and operation of the CO2 pipeline network (and hence costs), and (ii) CCS
development based around clusters would reinforce the lock-in effect further.
Given these two concerns, we see numerous synergies between the priority areas proposed by the
policy, economics and finance theme and the priority areas of the systems and transportation
themes. In particular, we think that developing the “technology evaluation platform”/“virtual
system” concept and “multi-scale modelling approaches” that allow high-fidelity models to link with
lower-fidelity, less computationally demanding models can have great synergies across many of the
UKCCSRC’s proposed research themes if this can be integrated with economic models.
Links to Transport and CO2 Properties Theme
Further, the CO2 properties and transport themes could focus on the potential impact of captured
CO2 with different properties from different capture technologies on the design of the CO2 pipeline
network, which minimises the unit cost of transport. An interesting question related to the CO2
properties and pipeline theme is to define the potential trade-off between transport costs and the
flexibility of the pipeline system in accommodating CO2 with different properties.
Links to Full CCS Chain (Capture, Transport and Storage) and Systems Theme
More research on economic mechanisms to de-risk (or minimise) investment in the CCS chain
(capture, transport and storage) would be a priority for the policy, economics and finance theme.
The risk profiles across the CCS chain (capture, transport and storage) differ substantially and involve
many questions in need of answers: Should storage activities follow a ‘market-driven’ approach or
be tightly regulated? Should the government bear the risks related to CO2 transport and storage in
order to unlock investment in CCS? What is the most economically efficient way to manage different
risks along the CCS chain? Together with the three priority areas proposed by the policy, economics
and finance theme, these questions could potentially have a large impact on CCS research.
In order to address these different elements, an integrated economic model (modelling markets for
electricity and other energy commodities) could be linked with the Systems theme’s proposed
technology evaluation platform, which would include all three major CCS infrastructure components
(i.e. capture, transport and storage). This research strategy and approach could better integrate the
138
two themes and address many interesting economic-engineering questions related to CCS, thereby
widening our understanding of the technology and feeding back in to the other themes.
139
Comments on Priorities and Links to the CO2-Properties Theme
C02 Properties, Martin Trusler
In this document, I comment on some of the research priorities and key linkages between the CO2-
Properties theme and other themes.
CCS Systems
It is probably worth emphasising the obvious fact that reliable property models are fundamental to
understanding the operation of whole systems. Thus, there is a need for experimental research on
CO2 properties to be coupled with the development of integrated property-modelling packages.
Adsorption and Membranes
Here a better understanding of the thermophysical properties influencing mass and heat transfer in
absorbers and strippers is needed. This will involve properties such as the viscosity, thermal
conductivity and interfacial tension, as well as enthalpy changes associated with CO2
absorption/desorption.
Capture
Establishing improved processes for solvent-based capture will require further research on the
vapour-liquid equilibria (VLE) of CO2 with potential solvents, including blends. In addition to VLE,
calorimetric properties are required (heat capacity and phase-change enthalpies). The kinetics of
CO2 absorption/desorption are also important and should be measured along with the VLE. There is
a strong link with CO2 properties in this area.
Transport
The main linkage here is the need to understand very well the phase behaviour of CO2-rich streams
under pipeline conditions, including the effects of a host of potential trace impurities.
Storage
This is another area of strong linkage with CO2 properties, with the main requirement being to
understand better all relevant physical properties of the multi-phase fluids present in the storage
sink. Properties such as CO2 solubility, interfacial tension and contact angle are key, with other
interesting properties being the density and viscosity of CO2-saturated brines and oils. Chemical
interactions between CO2-acidified brines and reservoir minerals are another area for consideration
as, depending on the type of formation, reactive transport may be important.
Pre-Combustion Capture/Hydrogen
This calls for a better understanding of low-temperature VLE in mixtures of CO2 and H2 with various
minor components.
140
Appendix 4: CCS Research Grants
Selected CCS Research Grants
EPSRC GRANTS
Project Title Principal
Investigator
Grant-holding
Organisation
Start Date End Date
EP/G036608/1 DTC ENERGY:
Technologies for
a low carbon
future
Williams Leeds 01/10/2009 31/4/2018
EP/G037345/1 Efficient Power
from Fossil
Energy and
Carbon Capture
Technologies
(EPFECCT)
Snape Nottingham 01/10/2009 31/4/2018
EP/K001329/1 A Coordinated,
Comprehensive
Approach to
Carbon Capture
and Utilisation
Allen Sheffield 07/09/2012 06/03/2017
EP/K000446/1 The United
Kingdom Carbon
Capture and
Storage Research
Centre
Gibbins Edinburgh 01/04/2012 31/03/2017
EP/J020184/1 Computational
Modelling and
Optimisation of
Carbon Capture
Reactors
Gu Cranfield 01/10/2012 30/09/2016
EP/I02249X/1 Structural
evolution across
multiple time and
length scales
Withers Manchester 01/10/2011 30/09/2016
141
EP/J020745/1 Effective
Adsorbents for
Establishing
Solids Looping as
a Next
Generation NG
PCC Technology
Liu Nottingham 01/08/2012 31/01/2016
EP/J019704/1,
EP/J019720/1
Feasibility of a
wetting layer
adsorption
carbon capture
process based on
chemical solvents
Sweatman,
Brandani
Strathclyde,
Edinburgh
01/10/2012 30/09/2015
EP/J02077X Adsorption
Materials and
Processes for
Carbon Capture
from Gas-Fired
Power Plants -
AMPGas
Brandani Edinburgh 01/09/2012 31/08/2015
EPSRC Case
Award
TECRON, Case
Award and
Howden Group
Lucquiaud Edinburgh 01/11/2012 31/05/2015
EP/J020788/1 Gas-FACTS: Gas -
Future Advanced
Capture
Technology
Options -
Consortium
proposal by
Cranfield,
Edinburgh,
Imperial, Leeds
and Sheffield
Gibbins Edinburgh 01/04/2012 31/03/2015
142
EP/I036494/1 The Network for
the Centres of
Doctoral Training
(CDTs) in Energy
Snape Nottingham 01/11/2011 31/10/2014
EP/CASE Determination of
the risk of CO-
CO2 Stress
Corrosion
Cracking in
pipeline
transmission
systems used in
carbon capture
and storage
Race Newcastle 01/10/2009 30/09/2014
EP/I010971/1 Fundamental
study of
migration of
supercritical
carbon dioxide in
porous media
under conditions
of saline aquifers
He Sheffield 01/04/2011 30/09/2014
EP/G062889/2 Study of
Supercritical Coal
Fired Power Plant
Dynamic
Responses and
Control for Grid
Code Compliance
Wang Warwick 01/02/2011 17/06/2014
EP/G012865/1 Ceramic
membranes for
energy
applications and
CO2 capture
Metcalfe Newcastle 03/04/2009 02/04/2014
143
EP/H022864/1 UK Carbon
Capture and
Storage
Community
Network
(UKCCSC)
Gibbins Edinburgh 01/04/2010 31/03/2014
EP/I010912/1 Multi-scale
evaluation of
advanced
technologies for
capturing the
CO2: chemical
looping applied to
solid fuels.
Scott Cambridge 01/04/2011 31/03/2014
EP/I010955/1 The Next
Generation of
Activated Carbon
Adsorbents for
the Pre-
Combustion
Capture of CO2
Snape Nottingham 01/03/2011 28/02/2014
EP/I010947/1 Novel Catalytic
Membrane
Micro-reactors
for CO2 Capture
via Pre-
combustion
Decarbonisation
Route
Chadwick Imperial 01/01/2011 31/12/2013
EP/I010939/1 FOCUS -
Fundamentals of
Optimised
Capture Using
Solids
Brandani Edinburgh 01/01/2011 31/12/2013
144
EP/J014702/1 New Approach to
Extend Durability
of Sorbent
Powders for
Multicycle High
Temperature CO2
Capture in
Hydrogen
Milne Leeds 01/05/2012 31/10/2013
EP/H022961/1 UK Carbon
Capture and
Storage
Community
Network
(UKCCSC)
Haszeldine Edinburgh 01/11/2009 31/10/2013
EP/G061785/1 Step Change
Adsorbents and
Processes for CO2
Capture.
Drage Nottingham 01/11/2009 31/10/2013
EP/G062153/1 Oxyfuel
Combustion -
Academic
Programme for
the UK
Pourkashanian Leeds 01/11/2009 31/10/2013
EP/F034520/1,
EP/F034482/1
Carbon Capture
from Power Plant
and Atmosphere
Brandani Edinburgh,
Heriot-Watt
01/10/2008 30/09/2013
EP/G063176/1 Innovative
Adsorbent
Materials and
Processes for
Integrated
Carbon Capture
and Multi-
pollutant Control
for Fossil Fuel
Power
Generation
Snape Nottingham 01/10/2009 30/09/2013
145
EP/G063451/1 In-depth Studies
of OxyCoal
Combustion
Processes
through
Numerical
Modelling and 3D
Flame Imaging
Pourkashanian Leeds 01/03/2010 30/09/2013
EP/J018198/1 Carbon Capture in
the Refining
Process
Ahn Edinburgh 01/06/2012 31/05/2013
EP/H046313/1 Bio-inspired
(Fe,Ni)S nano-
catalysts for CO2
conversion
DeLeeuw UCL 01/05/2010 30/04/2013
EP/G062129/1 Innovative Gas
Separations for
Carbon Capture
Brandani Edinburgh 01/10/2009 31/03/2013
EP/H018190/1 FTIR USING
ASYNCHRONOUS
FEMTOSECOND
OPOS: A NEW
PARADIGM FOR
HIGH-
RESOLUTION
FREE-SPACE MID-
INFRARED
SPECTROSCOPY
Reid Heriot-Watt 01/02/2010 31/01/2013
EP/G061955/1 MATTRAN -
Materials for Next
Generation CO2
Pipeline
Transportation
Race Newcastle 01/10/2009 31/01/2013
EP/G06265X/1,
EP/G063265/1,
EP/G06279X/1,
EP/G02374/1
Joint UK / China
Hydrogen
production
network
Scott, Oakey,
Fennel, Sharifi
Cambridge,
Cranfield,
Imperial,
Sheffield
01/10/2009 31/12/2012
146
EP/G063044/1 Clean Coal
Combustion:
Burning Issues of
Syngas Burning
Zhang Sheffield 01/02/2010 30/11/2012
EP/G048916/1 The Propogation
of Wetting Fronts
through Porous
Media
Sprittles Oxford 01/11/2009 31/10/2012
EP/F012098/1 Centre for
Innovation in
Carbon Capture
and Storage
Maroto-Valer Nottingham 01/10/2007 30/09/2012
EP/E059392/1 Computational
Chemistry of
Hybrid
Frameworks
Mellot-
Draznieks
UCL 01/09/2007 31/08/2012
EP/F041772/1 A Complementary
Study of Ultra-
Fast Magnetic
Resonance
Imaging and
Electrical
Capacitance
Tomography for
the Scale-Up of
Gas-Solid
Particulate
Systems
Dennis Cambridge 01/01/2009 30/06/2012
EP/F029748/1 SUPERGEN 2 -
Conventional
Power Plant
Lifetime
Extension
Consortium
Thomson Loughborough 01/07/2008 30/06/2012
EP/I016686/1 Nanotubes for
Carbon Capture
Campbell Edinburgh 01/11/2010 30/04/2012
147
EP/F04237X/1 Dispersive Mixing
in
Multicomponent
Multiphase Flow:
numerical and
physical effects
LaForce Imperial 01/10/2008 30/09/2011
EP/F061188/1 Optimisation of
Biomass/Coal Co-
Firing Processes
through
Integrated
Measurement
and
Computational
Modelling
Pourkashanian Leeds 01/09/2008 31/08/2011
EP/G02037X/1 : Carbon Capture
and Storage
Interactive: CCSI
Erskine Edinburgh 01/02/2009 31/05/2011
TS/G002002/1 Impact of High
Concentrations of
SO2 and SO3 in
Carbon Capture
Applications and
its Mitigation
Pourkashanian Leeds 01/05/2009 30/04/2011
TS/G001693/1 CO2 Optimised
Compression
('COZOC')
Maroto-Valer Nottingham 03/02/2009 02/02/2011
DT/F007744/1,
DTF007337/1
CO2 Aquifer
Storage Site
Evaluation and
Monitoring
(CASSEM)
Haszeldine,
Todd
Edinburgh,
Heriot-Watt
01/08/2008 31/01/2011
DT/F007116/2, Optimisation of
Oxyfuel PF Power
Plant for
Transient
Behaviour
Gibbins Edinburgh 01/05/2010 31/12/2010
148
EP/G03379X/1 UK-India
Sustainable
Energy
Technology
Network
Drage Nottingham 01/01/2009 31/12/2010
DT/F00754X/1 CO2 Aquifer
Storage Site
Evaluation and
Monitoring
(CASSEM)
Lawrence BGS 01/04/2008 31/10/2010
EP/C543203/1 Developing
Effective
Adsorbent
Technology for
the Capture of
CO2
Drage Nottingham 01/10/2005 30/09/2010
DT/E005012/1,
DT/E00525X/1
Optimisation of
CO2 Separation
and H2
Combustion for
Near-zero
Powerplant
Emissions
Moss, Snape Imperial,
Nottingham
01/10/2006 30/10/2009
EP/E010202/1 C-Cycle Wood, Bew,
North, Tsang,
Styring,
Anderson
Birmingham,
East Anglia,
Newcastle,
Reading,
Sheffield, UCL
23/10/2006 22/10/2009
EP/D055725/1 Clean Coal
Technology: A
Novel Process for
the Combustion
of Coal Using an
Oxygen Carrier
Dennis Cambridge 17/04/2006 16/10/2009
149
EP/F061285/1 Feasibility study
for a new gas
separation
process, with
application to
carbon dioxide
capture
Sweatman Strathclyde 01/04/2008 30/09/2009
EP/G004900/1 CATALYTIC
PRODUCTION OF
CYCLIC
CARBONATES
FROM WASTE
CARBON DIOXIDE
North Newcastle 01/10/2008 30/09/2009
DT/E005691/1,
DT/E00511X/1
Oxycoal UK Wigley,
Gibbins, Snape
Imperial,
Edinburgh,
Nottingham
07/03/2007 06/09/2009
EP/D013844/1 Can CO2 hydrate
formation act as a
safety factor for
subsurface
storage of CO2?
Tohidi Heriot-Watt 01/03/2006 30/04/2009
EP/F027435/1 Distributed
Hydrogen
Production with
Carbon Capture:
A Novel Process
for the
Production of
Hydrogen from
Biomass
Dennis Cambridge 01/10/2007 31/03/2009
150
NERC GRANTS
Project Title Principal
Investigator
Grant-
holding
Organisation
Start Date End Date
NE/H013962/1,
NE/H013954/1,
NE/H013989/1
Quantifying and
Monitoring
Potential
Ecosystem
Impacts of
Geological
Carbon Storage
(QICS)
Blackford,
Akhurst,
Haszeldine
PML, BGS
Edinburgh
01/05/2010 01/04/2014
NE/H013865/1,
NE/H013946/1,
NE/H01392X/1
Multiscale
whole systems
modelling and
analysis for CO2
capture,
transport and
storage
Wang,
Quinn,
Durucan
Cranfield,
BGS,
Imperial
04/10/2010 31/03/2014
NE/F002645/1,
NE/F004699/1,
NE/F002823/1,
NE/F005083/1
Predicting the
fate of CO2 in
geological
reservoirs for
modelling
geological
carbon storage
Rochelle,
Bickle,
Ballentine,
Yardley
BGS,
Cambridge,
Manchester,
Leeds
07/05/2008 31/10/2013
NE/J006483/1 Active Reservoir
Management
for Improved
Hydrocarbon
Recovery
Main Edinburgh 12/01/2011 12/01/2013
NE/H013474/1 Carbon Capture
and Storage:
Realising the
Potential
Haszeldine Edinburgh 01/04/2010 31/03/2012
NERC BGS CO2 Storage
Research
Chadwick BGS 01/04/2011 31/03/2012
151
NE/H002804/1 Classification of
Digital Rocks by
Machine
Learning to
Discover Micro-
to-Macro
Relationships
and Quantify
Their
Uncertainty
Ma Heriot-Watt 11/04/2010 10/08/2011
NE/E006329/1 Passive seismic
emission
tomography:
the dynamics of
a reservoir
Kendall Bristol
NE/I010904/1 Still or
sparkling:
Microseismic
monitoring of
CO2 injection at
In Salah
Kendall Bristol
NE/I021497/1 An integrated
geophysical,
geodetic,
geomechanical
and
geochemical
study of CO2
storage in
subsurface
reservoirs
Verdon Bristol Fellowship
152
NE/F013728/2 Conceptual
uncertainty in
the
interpretation
of geological
data: statistical
analysis of
factors
influencing
interpetation
and associated
risk
Shipton Strathclyde
NE/G011222/1 Geological
characterisation
of deep saline
aquifers for
CO2 storage on
the UK
Continental
Shelf using
borehole and
3D seismic data
Imber Durham CASE
Studentship
NE/G015163/1 Investigating
the role of
natural tracers
in subsurface
CO2 storage
and monitoring
Gilfillan Edinburgh Fellowship
NE/H017712/1 Quantifying the
risk of leakage
of CO2 from
subsurface
storage sites
Cartwright Cardiff CASE
Studentship
153
ESRC GRANTS
Project Title Principal
Investigator
Grant-
holding
Organisation
Start Date End Date
ESRC/RES-
360-25-
0068
From
greenhouse
effect to
climategate: a
systematic
study of
climate
change as a
complex social
issue
Nerlich Nottingham 01/05/2011 01/05/2014
ESRC/RES-
062-23-
2326
Bilateral
Netherlands:
The politics of
low carbon
innovation:
towards a
theory of
niche
protection
Smith Sussex 01/10/2010 30/09/2013
RES-599-28-
0001
Centre for
Climate
Change
Economics
and Policy
Rees LSE 01/10/2008 30/09/2013
UKERC Transforming
the UK energy
systems:
public values,
attitudes and
acceptability
Pidgeon Cardiff 01/01/2011 01/12/2012
154
RES-152-25-
1002
Cambridge
Research
Group on
Economic
Policy Analysis
of Sustainable
Energy
Newbery Cambridge 01/10/2005 30/09/2010
ESRC/RES-
152-27-
0002
The
sociopolitical,
environmental
and
technological
implications of
climatic
changes in the
Circumpolar
Arctic for UK
Energy
Security
Powell Liverpool 01/09/2007 31/08/2010
155
EUROPEAN CCS PROJECTS
Project Title Principal
Investigator
Grant-
holding
Organisation
Start Date End Date
FP7/268191 RELCOM
(Optimization of
Oxy-fuel
combustion)
Pourkashanian Leeds 01/01/2012 31/12/2015
FP7 (+
industry)
ULTimate CO2 BGS 01/12/2011 30/11/2015
FP7/265847 Sub-seabed CO2
Storage: Impact
on Marine
Ecosystems
(ECO2)
Blackford,
Shackley
PML,
Edinburgh
01/05/2011 30/04/2015
FP7/249745 NEXTGENPOWER Oakey Cranfield 01/05/2010 30/04/2014
FP7/256625 CO2CARE BGS,
Imperial
01/01/2011 31/12/2013
FP7/256705 SITECHAR Shackley BGS,
Imperial,
Edinburgh
01/01/2011 31/12/2013
FP7/240837 Research into
Impacts and
Safety in CO2
Storage (RISCS)
Jones BGS 01/01/2010 01/12/2013
FP7/256725 CGS EUROPE BGS,
Nottingham
01/11/2010 31/10/2013
FP7/239349 H2-IGCC Oakey Cranfield 01/11/2009 31/10/2013
156
FP7/241346 CO2PIPEHAZ -
Quantitative
Failure
Consequence
Hazard
Assessment for
Next Generation
CO2 Pipelines:
The Missing Link
Fairweather Leeds 01/12/2009 30/04/2013
FP7 SafeCCS BGS 01/02/2011 31/01/2013
FP7/241381 COCATE - Large-
scale CCS
Transportation
infrastructure in
Europe
01/01/2010 31/12/2012
FP7/241400 COMET -
Integrated
infrastructure
for CO2
transport and
storage in the
West
Mediterranean
01/01/2010 31/12/2012
FP7/241302 Caoling project Fennell Imperial 01/12/2009 30/11/2012
FP7/226352 nearCO2 NEw
pARticipation
and
communication
strategies for
neighbours of
CO2 capture and
storage
operations
Reiner Cambridge 01/04/2009 31/03/2011
157
FP6/518350 CO2ReMoVe BGS,
Imperial
01/03/2006 29/02/2012
FP6/16210 FENCO-ERA:
Scrutinizing the
impact of CCS
communication
on the general
and local public
Reiner Cambridge 01/06/2005 30/11/2010
FP6/44287 TOCSIN
Technology-
Oriented
Cooperation and
Strategies in
India and China
Reiner Cambridge 01/01/2007 31/10/2009
European
Space
Agency
SpaceMon BGS 07/04/2011 29/02/2012
Research
Council
Norway
BIGCCS BGS 01/01/2009 31/12/2016
Research
Council
Norway
Norwegian KPN:
Effects of CO2
on rock
properties
BGS 01/02/2012 31/01/2015
158
INDUSTRY/GOVERNMENT CCS PROJECTS
Industry,
Government
Sponsor
Project Title Principal
Investigator
Grant-
holding
Organisation
Start Date End Date
Sulzer Chem Tech
and ETP
TRANSPACC
(Modelling)
Valluri Edinburgh 01/03/2012 30/09/2015
Sulzer Chem Tech
and ETP
TRANSPACC
(Experimental)
Lucquiaud Edinburgh 01/01/2012 31/07/2015
ETP, JP Kenny and
University of
Edinburgh
COPTIC Chalmers Edinburgh 01/10/2011 30/04/2015
ETP, SSE and
University of
Edinburgh
EURECA Gibbins Edinburgh 01/10/2011 30/04/2015
Cemex Uptake of CO2
by cement,
and Ca looping
extension
Fennell Imperial 01/10/2011 30/03/2015
Grantham
Institute
Integration of
Cement
manufacture
and Ca looping
Fennell Imperial 01/10/2011 30/03/2015
Doosan Power
Systems, ETI and
University of
Edinburgh
COMCAT Gibbins Edinburgh 01/10/2010 30/04/2014
159
Doosan - SSE
(Scottish and
Southern Energy),
in collaboration
with Doosan
Babcock and
Vattenfall,
"CPP 100+,
TSB/SSE, DB
and Vattenfall,
Pourkashanian Leeds 01/05/2010 01/04/2013
TSB CASET Oakey Cranfield 01/04/2013 01/04/2013
ETI Next
Generation
Capture
Technologies
Brandani Edinburgh 01/07/2011 31/01/2013
Doosan Power
Systems
TRACTION Lucquiaud Edinburgh 01/09/2011 30/09/2012
TSB ASPECT Oakey Cranfield 01/10/2008 30/09/2012
ETI Techno-
Economic
Study of
Biomass to
Power with
CCS (TESBIC)
Pourkashanian Leeds
Cambridge
Imperial
16/03/2011 31/05/2012
Masdar Clean
Energy Company
Carbon
capture,
transport and
storage in UAE
Shah Imperial 01/10/2008 01/05/2012
Royal Society and
Wolfson
Foundation
The PoSTCap
Lab for Direct
Reduction in
Carbon
Emissions
from Fossil
Power Plants
Gibbins Edinburgh 01/03/2011 31/03/2011
160
Cemex Ca looping /
Cement
interactions
Fennell Imperial 01/10/2008 31/03/2012
Scottish Power
Academic Alliance
TAGTEC Lucquiaud Edinburgh 01/11/2010 28/02/2012
Grantham
Institute
Measurement
s of Amine
Volatility
Trusler Imperial 01/10/2008 31/12/2011
DECC CAPPCCO
(Chinese
Advanced
Power Plant
Carbon
Capture
Options)
Reiner Cambridge 18/12/2007 31/07/2011
Royal Society and
Wolfson
Foundation
Royal
Society/Wolfs
on Foundation
Carbon
Mitigation
Laboratory
Trusler Imperial 02/01/2010 01/01/2011
DTI -
TP/MAT/6/1/H06
39C
Corrosion
Modelling -
information
received late
Oakey Cranfield 08/01/2007 31/12/2010
BCURA BCURA -
information
received late
Oakey Cranfield 01/10/2008 30/09/2010
TSB Enhanced
Capture with
Oxygen Critical
Operating
Parameters:
Post-
Combustion
Scrubbing
Pourkashanian Leeds 01/03/2008 01/08/2010
161
Yorkshire
Forward vis CLCF
Process
Simulation and
Virtual
Modelling of
Carbon
Capture and
Sequestration
Pourkashanian Leeds 01/04/2010 01/06/2010
Scottish Carbon
Capture,
Transport and
Storage
Consortium
Public
Engagement
Toolkit for
Scotland
Shackley Edinburgh 01/01/2010 30/04/2010
DECC NZEC (Near-
Zero Emissions
Coal plant)
Reiner Cambridge 01/12/2008 30/11/2009
DTI - C/07/0361 UK-US
Advanced
Materials for
Low Emissions
Power Plants -
information
received late
Oakey Cranfield 05/04/2004 30/04/2009
National Grid COOLTRANS -
Pipeline
design
requirements,
risk
assessment,
environmental
impact and
safe operation
of dense
phase CO2
pipelines
Race Newcastle
Defra CAPPCO Gibbins Edinburgh
162
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH PROJECTS
Project
Sponsor
Project Title Principal
Investigator
Grant-
holding
Organisation
Start Date End Date
IEA GHG Communications
Study on CCS
Shackley Edinburgh 01/12/2011 30/08/2012
GCCSI CCS Large Group
Process for Scotland
Shackley Edinburgh 01/09/2011 30/08/2012
China
Prosperity
SPF Fund
Supporting early
Carbon Capture
Utilisation and
Storage development
in non-power
industrial sectors
Pourkashanian Leeds 01/10/2011 01/04/2012
Global
CCS
Institute
via CSIRO
Public
Communications and
Understanding
Sources of
Opposition to CCS
Reiner Cambridge 01/05/2010 01/05/2011
163
Marie
Curie
Actions
Centre of Excellence
in Computational
Fluid
Dynamics COFLUIDS
Pourkashanian Leeds 01/05/2006 01/08/2010
FCO and
UK
Embassy
in China
Techno economic
study of CCS
technology in China
Pourkashannian Leeds 01/04/2010 01/06/2010
FCO and
GCCSI
Guangdong CCS-
Ready
Gibbins Edinburgh
