APPENDIX 24
Memorandum from the UK Carbon Capture
and Storage Consortium
The UK Carbon Capture and Storage Consortium is
a multidisciplinary group of 12 universities and two NERC Research
Institutes which has received £2 million funding as part
of the TSEC programme. The mission of the consortium is: "to
promote an understanding of how options for decoupling fossil
fuel use from carbon emissions through the use of carbon capture
and storage could be used to assist the UK in achieving an energy
system which is environmentally sustainable, socially acceptable
and meets energy needs securely and affordably". The participants
in the UKCCSC are not funded by industry interests on this project,
although individual groups may have diverse income streams which
include industrial sponsorship. For further information on the
Consortium and CCS see www.ukccsc.co.uk
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Carbon capture and storage is a viable carbon
abatement technology for the UK. The first full scale systems
could be deployed by 2010. Market based incentives required
for early deployment are expected to be less than for analogous
actions on renewables. Ample offshore geological storage for CO2
is available. The public acceptability for CCS appears to be better
than for nuclear power. The main role for Government in facilitating
R&D on CCS is to implement the incentive schemes for early
deployment that will allow "learning by doing" and attract
and focus industrial and other R&D effort. Government also
needs to ensure that CCS receives appropriate attention in UK
energy policy studies, that the necessary academic base for this
potentially large field of activity is developed and that independent
expertise is available to support the key Government role of issuing
permits and providing long-term stewardship for geological CO2
storage sites.
(a) The viability of CCS as a carbon abatement
technology for the UK
A1. Global deployment of CCS technologies
will be referred to only briefly, but it should be noted that
much of the atmospheric carbon concentration abatement benefit
to the UK from R&D on CCS is likely to arise through technologies
and practices developed and demonstrated in the UK being replicated
in other countries, particularly in connection with coal utilisation.
This is a new, and therefore potentially "game changing",
approach to climate change mitigation in which the UK, because
of its favourable natural geological assets and drive to develop
low emission energy, is well placed to be one of the world leaders.
A2. CCS as a carbon abatement technology
for the UK will be discussed primarily in the context of its possible
initial deployment in the near-term (10-20 year) to 1) contribute
simultaneously to filling electricity generation and CO2
emission reduction "gaps" and 2) extend the use of North
Sea industry resources, infrastructure and expertise. In the longer
term decarbonised electricity and hydrogen produced using CCS
could also be used extensively in the building and ground transport
sectors, with potentially very high abatement levels (80% plus)
for the fossil fuel component of energy supply in these areas.
This depends, however, on changes in the infrastructure and end-use
stock to accommodate carbon-free energy vectors, particularly
for transport (as well as the necessary emission targets). Large
scale biomass conversion with CCS, probably through co-utilisation
of biomass with coal, would also remove CO2 from the
air, as well as providing energy. This could be used as an offset
for emissions from air and marine transport, where carbon-based
liquid fuels have obvious technical advantages.
By allowing the continued use of coal, which
has much larger world reserves than gas or oil and historically
more stable prices, CCS can also contribute to UK energy diversity
and security, both in the immediate term and in 30 to 40 years
time, when oil and gas may be running out.
The scope for using CCS to effect higher levels
of abatement from fossil fuel use in the future is, however, likely
to be strongly affected by whether or not an established core
of CCS infrastructure and expertise is built up over time using
earlier opportunities. In particular, offshore facilities that
have been removed, pipelines that have been scrapped and wells
that have been sealed cannot subsequently be reinstated for a
new lease of life as part of a UK carbon dioxide storage system.
Further incremental oil is also not likely to be obtained by CO2
EOR from fields that have been abandoned.
A3. CCS technologies that might be considered
for deployment for electricity generation in the UK over the next
10-20 years are shown in Table 1 overleaf. Coal gasification might
also be used to generate hydrogen-rich gas for chemical production
and oil refining, possibly in conjunction with electricity production
(polygeneration).
A4. CCS technologies could begin deployment
at full scale in the UK by 2010 if economic, regulatory and other
conditions were favourable. The BP/SSE Miller/Peterhead project
using CCS from a 350MW natural gas power station for EOR is scheduled
to start operation in 2009 (http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7006999).
A new 800MWe IGCC at Teesside being developed by Progressive Energy
reportedly aims to be in operation by 2010. Commercial post
combustion capture technology from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
will have been demonstrated at small scale on coal flue gas by
2006 and will probably be offered commercially from 2008 with
earliest operation also perhaps by 2010 (it is possible, however,
that the Large Combustion Plant Directive deadline in 2016 would
be the preferred date for any post combustion capture retrofits
to existing pulverised coal plants). CO2 storage in
depleted offshore oilfields for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is
technically and legally feasible now. Storage in offshore aquifers
and depleted gas fields is also technically feasible but may currently
not be permissible under the OSPAR and London treaties for CO2
originating from land-based installations. The UK government is
currently working to extend these treaties to include environmentally
sound storage.
A5. CCS deployment could achieve emission
reductions approaching 50 MtCO2/yr by 2020 from estimates
in a previous UKCCSC publication, as summarised in Table 2 below:
(http://www.stabilisation2005.com/61_Dr_Jon_Gibbins.pdf)
Table 2
ILLUSTRATIVE CO2 REDUCTIONS FROM
THE USE OF CCS IN MODIFIED DTI "UPDATED ENERGY PROJECTIONS"
SCENARIOS FOR 2020
A6. CCS electricity generation economics
for a power plant operator capturing CO2 on site depend
on lower net operating costs offsetting the increased capital
costs for the capture plant and other equipment. Fuel input per
unit electricity is increased by approximately 20-25% for coal
and 10-15% for gas to provide the energy to drive the CO2
capture process, and there will also be a charge for CO2
storage (except possibly with EOR). But charges for carbon emissions
would be reduced (by approximately 85%) and there may also be
further incentive payments for low-emission generation, giving
a net reduction in operating costs.
An alternative business model for a fuel supplier
involves selling hydrogen-rich gas "over the fence"
to a gas turbine combined cycle (GTCC) power plant operator. Fuel
prices are higher than for natural gas, but carbon emission costs
are lower. The value added to the natural gas, coal (or possibly,
cheaper, petroleum coke) used, with pre-combustion capture, to
generate the hydrogen covers the capital costs of the plant and
CO2 storage costs.
Additional costs required to produce "decarbonised
electricity" from CCS would vary with fuel prices and site-
and technology-specific factors for the capture and storage components
but are probably in the range of 1-3 pence per kilowatt-hour (p/kWh),
with most of this attributable to the cost of capturing and compressing
the CO2.
A7. CCS must be recognised in the EU ETS
to provide a financial reward for the carbon emission savings.
Currently geological storage is not included as a valid sink within
the EU ETS, but there is a DTI study that indicates a way in which
it could be included ( http://www2.dti.gov.uk/energy/coal/cfft/cct/pub/pdfs/r277.pdf)
A8. Geophysical feasibility: Current CO2
storage projects at the Sleipner and In Salah gas fields and the
many enhanced oil recovery projects (including the Weyburn project)
clearly indicate that it is technically possible to inject and
store CO2 underground for the short to medium term
(at least 2 decades). Long-term storage cannot be directly demonstrated
as CO2 injection has only been carried out for the
last 20-30 years, but natural CO2 and CO2-rich
gas accumulations are thought to have existed for millions of
years.
Depleted natural gas and oil fields have a proven
ability to retain buoyant fluids so should be able to retain CO2
for very long periods, providing that their exploitation has not
damaged the seal that previously retained hydrocarbons and that
reaction with CO2 does not allow leakage. Although
it is more difficult to prove that "traps" identified
in saline aquifers can retain CO2, many such traps
have been used for natural gas storage, and it is expected that
there will be significant storage capacity in saline aquifers.
A9. UK storage capacity: From a UK perspective
there is significant storage potential in the rocks beneath the
UK Continental Shelf, especially in the areas that contain our
reserves of oil and natural gas: potential storage capacity in
UK oil and gas fields is approximately 6.2 Gigatonnes of carbon
dioxide (Gt = 109 tonnes) and total UK storage capacity is likely
to comfortably exceed 20 GtCO2 (approximately 125 years
of current UK electricity sector emissions or 40 years of current
total emissions). These estimates were made by the British Geological
Survey, who have submitted evidence independently.
A10. Monitoring and long-term stewardship:
A framework for monitoring CO2 underground will be
necessary to prevent or mitigate potential leaks. 4D seismic could
detect the movement of CO2 underground. Measurements
should be compared to predictive numerical models. The location
of all abandoned wells should be recorded—as is done already
in the North Sea—with rules for filling the wells with CO2-resistant
cement. The wells should be monitored for leaks of CO2.
If CO2 is leaking, wells can be recompleted, or reservoirs
depressurised by pumping out CO2 and injecting it elsewhere.
The responsibility for long-term monitoring would have to lie
with the Government and not private industry and a UK Carbon Dioxide
Capture and Storage Authority might need to be established to
take overall responsibility for the regulation of this new industry
and eventually to provide long-term stewardship for the CO2
stored underground.
A11. Public acceptability: CCS still has
limited public awareness. Research by the Tyndall Centre and Cambridge
suggests that the public are not opposed to CCS and become more
in favour as they learn more. However, acceptance of the technology
is dependent on 1) acceptance of climate change as a serious and
urgent problem and 2) that CCS would be implemented as part of
a portfolio of measures (including renewables and energy efficiency)
and not at the expense of other mitigation options. CCS appears
to be more acceptable to the public than nuclear power.
(b) The UK Government's role in funding CCS
R&D and providing incentives for technology transfer and industrial
R&D in CCS technology
B1. Deployment to allow "learning by
doing" is the most critical incentive for R&D into all
aspects of CCS technologies and how they can be used for the benefit
of the UK. The importance of this route for renewables has already
been recognised, with the Government putting in place support
mechanisms, most notably ROCs, to bring these technologies to
large-scale deployment earlier than pure market conditions would
allow. Similar market based incentives, although probably at a
lower cost per unit of production, are required for CCS technologies.
If forthcoming, the first full scale UK CCS projects could be
operational by about 2010. Specific incentives should also
be considered for the new offshore activity of combined CO2
storage and EOR. Government actions to establish suitable incentives
would immediately release significant amounts of industrial R&D
and focus complementary R&D activities in academe and government.
Many of the industrial organisations involved are multinational
companies and so would be able to bring funds and expertise from
a much wider base to their flagship projects in the UK.
B2. Government must consistently identify
CCS as an energy technology area in the same way as "nuclear",
"hydrogen", "biomass", "renewables"
etc. and give it generally equivalent attention in official planning
and communications if its possible contributions to UK energy
supplies are to receive appropriate attention in R&D activities.
Significant progress has already been made in this area, notably
the DTI CAT Strategy Report and the POST note on CCS but, given
that CCS is such a new field, consistent and sustained effort
is needed to ensure that relevant applications and benefits are
not overlooked.
B3. Government must support R&D on how
CCS fits into the big UK energy picture because many aspects of
CCS technologies and their use go well beyond the concerns of
individual organisations. The TSEC programme and specifically
our UKCCSC project is one successful example of this, but it needs
to be backed up by further and more detailed cross-disciplinary
work as the field develops.
B4. Government must support the development
of independent UK expertise on the long-term issues associated
with licensing, monitoring and closing geological CO2
storage sites so it can ensure that CCS is being conducted safely
and with appropriate levels of environmental protection. This
will both help to achieve public acceptance of CCS and also protect
the interests of the Government itself, as the body to whom residual
long term responsibility for these sites will inevitably devolve.
Some of the necessary R&D can, and should, be undertaken through
international collaborations, but many issues will arise that
relate to specific UK geological conditions and site characteristics.
The environmental consequences for leakage of CO2 into
the marine environment are also a particular UK concern.
B5. Government must fund academic R&D
projects that train the next generation of CCS experts and build
up centres of UK expertise for all elements in the CCS capture,
transport and storage train as well as produce immediate research
results. Both the Research Councils and Government Departments
such as the DTI are already funding a limited number of academic
projects on CCS, but there are essentially no previous generations
of CCS-aware people for a future expansion in UK CCS deployment
to draw on. Young scientists and engineers are, however, generally
very enthusiastic about a career in this field and rapid progress
could be made if more resources were available.
B6. Government must support UK involvement
in international CCS projects and networks—as a cost-effective
way of undertaking R&D and ensuring that its benefits are
transferred back into the UK. Dissemination within the UK is also
a critical element in the process. A number of such collaborations
are already under way but potential opportunities are likely to
increase with time. The scope for international CCS projects to
contribute to furthering the aims of UK policy on global climate
change mitigation also exists.
October 2005
| 
