Introducing the IChemE Energy Centre @EnergyIChemE - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Slide 1

Introducing the IChemE Energy Centre

@EnergyIChemE 27 July 2016 www.icheme.org/energycentre

Slide 2

Timetable

18:00 Introduction from the Chair 18:05 Report presentation 18:25 Q&A 18:30 Panel Discussion 19:30 Refreshments and networking 20:30 Close

Slide 3

The IChemE Energy Centre

Systems thinking solutions for the global energy economy

• launched in March 2015
• the Centre will provide an evidence-based chemical

engineering perspective on global energy challenges To find out more visit www.icheme.org/energycentre, email energycentre@icheme.org or tweet @EnergyIChemE

Slide 4

IChemE Energy Centre Board

Chair:

• Professor Stefaan Simons, Brunel

University London Vice-Chairs:

• Professor Richard Darton, University of

Oxford

• Professor Geoff Maitland, Imperial

College London Secretary:

• Dr Niall Mac Dowell, Imperial College

London Leadership Forum Coordinator:

• Dr Rachael Hall, GE Power
• Allyson Black, Caltex Refineries
• Toby Chancellor-Weale, KBR
• Antonio Della Pelle, Enerdata
• Dr Gareth Forde, All Energy Pty
• Professor Sanette Marx, North-West

University

• Professor Jim Petrie, University of

Sydney

• Ben Salisbury, Horizon Nuclear Power
• Johan Samad, Petrofac Energy

Developments

• Paul Smith, SSE
• Shane Watson, Maersk Oil Qatar AS

Board members Executive officers

Slide 5

Join the Leadership Forum

Play a key role by:

• engaging in energy policy
• answering specific technical

questions

• providing expert advice

To get involved email: energycentre@icheme.org

Slide 6

Read the paper - shared via webinar

Slide 7

The Future of CCS

CCS Forum 2016 #poweringCCS Niall Mac Dowell, Imperial College London

Slide 8 Fuss, S., et al. (2014). Betting on negative emissions. Nature Climate Change, 4(10), 850–853

Outcome of COP21, December, 2015

Slide 9

Are fossil fuels hard to displace?

NO

YES

Is climate change an urgent matter?

NO A nuclear or renewables world unmotivated by climate. Most people in the fuel industries and most of the public are here. YES Environmentalists, nuclear advocates are often here. To encourage CCS

• ne needs to be here.

From: S. Socolow, Gordon CCS Conference, 2015

Four World Views

Slide 10

Slide 11 Jacard, M., “Sustainable Fossil Fuels”, 2006

Slide 12

Not having CCS is uniquely costly for 2oC

Slide 13

• Ali Abbas, University of Sydney
• André Bardow, RWTH Aachen University
• Nick Bevan, DECC
• Andy Boston, ERP
• Solomon Brown, University of Sheffield
• Kyra Sedransk Campbell, Imperial College London
• Andrew Cavanagh, Statoil
• Dominique Copin, Total
• Benjamin Court, Global CCS Institute
• Ioannis Economou, Texas A&M University at Qatar
• Paul Fennell, Imperial College London
• Greeshma Gadikota, Princeton University
• Jon Gibbins, UKCCSRC
• Jonas Helseth, Bellona
• Howard Herzog, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Alexandra Howe, Institution of Chemical Engineers
• Iftikhar Huq, Suncor
• George Jackson, Imperial College London
• David Jones, BG Group
• Jasmin Kemper, IEAGHG
• Sam Krevor, Imperial College London
• Catherine Leroi, Total
• Will Lochhead, DECC
• Wilfried Maas, Shell
• Niall Mac Dowell, Imperial College London
• Iain Macdonald, Imperial College London
• Guido Magneschi, Global CCS Institute
• Geoff Maitland, Imperial College London
• Michael Matuszewski, University of Pittsburgh
• Theo Mitchell, CCSa
• Mona J. Mølnvik, SINTEF
• Alissa Park, Columbia University
• Camille Petit, Imperial College London
• Alfredo Ramos, PSE
• Jeff Reimer, UC Berkeley
• David Reiner, University of Cambridge
• Tony Ripley, DECC
• Caroline Saunders, Foreign & Commonwealth Office
• Mark Sceats, Calix
• Nilay Shah, Imperial College London
• Martin Trusler, Imperial College London
• Jan van der Stel, Tata Steel
• Jennifer Wilcox, Stanford University
• Rupert Wilmouth, Government Office for Science
• Celia Yeung, EPSRC

“what has happened in the last decade…and what should we do next?

Slide 14

Slide 15

Key conclusions and priorities

• 1. Development of a computational framework to

understand the dynamic interplay between scientific and technological advancements, their impacts on the power markets, and the broader socio-economic consequences of deploying CCS This will address the question “if I have a new process, will it make a difference?”

Slide 16

Key conclusions and priorities

• 2. Development of a computational framework to

rapidly screen new solvents and sorbents for CO2 capture based on molecular level information and provide process level cost and performance information. This will debottleneck the development of step- change materials and reduce/eliminate “false hope”

Slide 17

Key conclusions and priorities

• 3. An updating of benchmarks is vital. State-of-the-

art power plants combined with current materials can generate low-carbon electricity more efficiently than the current fleet The current “benchmark” is 30 wt% MEA, which requires ~ 3.5 – 4.0 GJ/tCO2. Industrial best practice is in the range of 2.3 GJ/tCO2.

Slide 18

Key conclusions and priorities

• 4. The point of CCS is climate change mitigation.

This implies the permanent storage of CO2. The de-risking of CO2 storage infrastructure around the world via exploration and characterisation of suitable geological structures is more urgent than the development of new capture technologies. The Asia-pacific region is a priority here.

Slide 19

Key conclusions and priorities

• 5. CO2 utilisation via Enhanced Oil Recovery

(EOR) is mature, and has the potential to provide a near-term, market-driven pull for the deployment of CO2 transport infrastructure. EOR is not a panacea, and can lead to the net emission of CO2. There is evidence that EOR can displace other hydrocarbons, leading to “avoided CO2”

Slide 20

Key conclusions and priorities

• 6. The market for products derived from CO2 will

be very small relative to what is needed to be stored as part of climate change mitigation. To contribute to climate change mitigation, CO2 needs to be stored “forever”. Delaying emission for ~ 50 years simply does not count from the perspective of the climate. Using CO2 can have the effect of materially reducing the environmental footprint of existing chemical processes.

Slide 21

Key conclusions and priorities

• 7. “Efficient” CCS is necessary but insufficient for

its deployment. A focus on the impact of CCS on the “£/MWh” is key Given low fossil fuel prices, an efficiency improvement at the cost of increased CAPEX may be counter productive Materials with accelerated rates of heat and mass transfer may be key here

Slide 22

Key conclusions and priorities

• 8. Decoupling the cost of power generation or

industrial processes with CO2 capture and the requisite CO2 transport infrastructure is key. Initial efforts to deploy CCS have included both the cost of capture and associated infrastructure in project costs. Leads to initial project costs being significantly inflated relative to the potential for the subsequent cost reduction once infrastructure costs can be shared.

Slide 23

Key conclusions and priorities

• 9. The role of electricity markets in the

development of CCS technologies needs to be carefully evaluated, with particular attention to the way in which CCS power plants will interact with the electricity markets. It is highly unlikely that CCS plants will provide baseload generation, although this will inevitably vary between national energy systems.

Slide 24

Key conclusions and priorities

10.It is vital that the near-term (2030) targets do not prohibit medium (2050) or long-term plans. E.g., to meet the COP21 targets, vast amounts

• f BECCS may be required.

BECCS cannot exist without a mature and derisked CCS industry. Greater insight into the role of BECCS within the power sector, with emphasis on the water-carbon-energy nexus is required

Slide 25

Summary and conclusions

• The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is requested to

make funds available for projects via the Mission Innovation initiative.

• The Mission Innovation initiative needs to explicitly include

CCS as a technology of interest.

• There is interest in identifying whether the Oil and Gas

Climate Initiative (OGCI) can take the lead on the study of identifying the low hanging fruit for EOR.

• An effort to investigate opportunities for collaborative

activities with Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA) and the OGCI as part of the Mission Innovation initiative would also be of broad interest