The NORDICCS CCS RoadmapMarit J. MazzettiKeynote TCCS7, Trondheim, Norway, 2013-06-05

Contributions by all NORDICCS WPsMarit.Mazzetti@sintef.no

Nordic CCS Competence Centre

NORDICCSNordic CCS Competence Centre

• Operating under the Nordic Top-level Research Initiative (TRI)

Vision for NORDICCS

• Funded by Nordic Innovation (75%) and Partners (25%)

• 16 Partners from research, industry and NGOs

• Duration: 5 years

• Total budget: 6.2 million Euro www.sintef.no/nordiccs

Become a Center of Expertise on CCS by developing Joint Nordic

Strategies to promote Widespread Implementation of CCS, and

effectively Communicate the strategies to the Decision makers and the

General public

Opportunity: Nordic Synergies

• Vast storage capacity off the

coasts of Norway and Denmark

&

• Large emission sources in

Sweden & Finland

• Joint CCS projects could allow

scale up

• Reductions in cost due to

economies of scale

Nordic Synergies - Biogenic emissions

• Great biomass energy

sources in Sweden and

Finland

• Potential for BECCS

projects that can go

carbon negative!

CO2 Emissions from Stationary Point Sources

With emissions > 100 000 tonnes (2009)

Status of CCS

• 97% hydropower, 2 % from CCGT and 1% wind. CO2 emissions mainly

from transportation(30%) offshore oil and gas production(29%), and

industry (25%). Goal of carbon neutral by 2050. CCS important for CO2

reduction in industry and gas fired power plants

• Power supply from hydro (53%) and nuclear (40%)

• Goal of carbon neutral by 2050. CCS assumed major share of the

reductions from the industry sector starting at 2040

• Fossil and some wind. Target of 100% renewable energy by 2050

• CCS for EOR a possibility, new climate plan this year

• Power from fossil, bio, nuclear. Extensive industrial-scale use of

biomass. Goal 80 % reduction in GHG by 2050

• VTT Analysis suggests 18 Mt of CO2 removed by CCS by 2050, BECCS,

bio-refineries, steel mills, cement, pulp & paper

• 85% Renewable energy: hydro and geothermal. Goal 50-70% red GHG

by 2050

• Industry: Aluminium plants 40% of CO2 2012 Numbers

Analysis of Nordic CCS

Includes CCS in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden . Source: International Energy Agency (2013), Nordic Energy Technology Perspectives, OECD/IEA, Paris

Tonni:

• Industrial

production increases

• Using current

technology

Inno:

• Rapid Technology

development

• More Urbanization

Industry Power Total

Nordic

ETP 2 DS7 8 15

International Energy Agency (2013), Nordic

Energy Technology Perspectives, OECD/IEA, Nordic

ETP CNS12 8 20

International Energy Agency (2013), Nordic

Energy Technology Perspectives, OECD/IEA,

Toni 9 25 34VTT Green Energy, 2012;Includes BECCS in pulp

and paper ind

Inno 10 21 31VTT Green Energy, 2012;Includes BECCS in pulp

and paper ind

Norway 3 19 22 Lavutslippsutvalget, 2006

Finland 14 4 18VTT Green Energy, 2012;Includes BECCS in pulp

and paper ind

Country Source

CCS for CO2 removal

(Mt/year)

CCS Implementation • Economy of Scale

• Oil industry through EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery)

• Could be economical for the operator

• CO2 is excellent agent to enhance oil recovery

• Sweetening: Purification of Norwegian export gas

• Industries with high concentrations of CO2, operational close to 100% of

the year

• Steel

• Cement

• Pulp and paper

• Fertilizer plants

• Gas fired Power plants with CCS

• Refinery emissions (processing and power plants)

Case 3: Skagerrak Industry Cluster

Capture Sites:

• Esso Refinery, Norway

• Norcem Cement plant, Norway

• Preemraff Refinery, Sweden

• Borealis Chemical Plant, Sweden

• Portland Cement, Denmark

• Nordjyllands verket, Denmark

Transport: via ship

Hub:

• Kårstø, Norway

• Hirtshals, Denmark– Location chosen closest to first capture site

Storage: Utsira, Norway or Gassum , Skagerak

World’s first CO 2 capture test facility in cement industryNorcem Brevik - Norway

Case 6: Zero Emission

Power Production

Scope: Large scale power plant using Combined

Cycle Gas Turbines w/CCS

• Economy of Scale: 2000 MW Plant

• Five Combined Cycle Gas Turbines

• CO2 emissions: 5 Mt/annually for possible

use in EOR

• Capture: MEA post-combustion

5 MtCO2/y, 5.6 MtCO2/y, 3.9/7.8 %CO2,

• Location: Stavanger

• Transport and Storage: Utsira via pipeline

• Power End Use:

− Electrification− Export to Europe− Metals Industry, e.g. Aluminium− CO2 End Use: EOR

Case 7: Sweetening The Deal

Challenge: CCS Expensive, EOR possible solution

• Prior EOR projects failed due to lack of steady

supply of CO2

Opportunity: Remove and store more of CO2

present in Norway's Natural Gas Currently

Exported to Europe

Location: Close to Source & Sink

• On shore, close to the source

• New oil and gas fields at Utsira

• Arctic or Northern Norway w/high CO2

Steady CO2 supply:

• Currently export 100 B Sm3/annually at 2.5%

• Economy of scale significant for volumes of CO2

captured of up to 2-3 M tonnes/year

Sweetening

Skagerakcluster

Large comb. cycles

Cost of different NORDICCS Case Scenarios- Nth of a kind (NOAK) Capture Technology

Storage cost (€/t)

Transport cost (€/t)

Capture cost (€/t)

How do we Realize Deployment?

• Economy of Scale & Continued R&D to Reduce Capture Costs

• EOR storage to further reduce costs of Sweetening

• Several Successful CCS Offshore Storage Projects Initially, then Onshore

• Changes to the European Carbon Market are Necessary for Industrial CCS

• The current European carbon market is not proving to be effective:

• Bio emissions should count

• Incentives/legislation needed

• Feed in Tariffs, Emission Performance Standards, CCS Certificates

• Strengthening ETS (backloading……….)

• Risk Distribution Necessary

• Government will have to support the first implementations to reduce risk

(CAPEX & OPEX)

• Support for infrastructure development

• Hubs for transport to storage site

• Transport network for CO2 in the Nordic region is too costly

• Ship only option until scale is large enough to justify pipeline

Scenarios for Implementation

Conclusions from NORDICCS Roadmap

• Nordic Countries as a group cannot reach CO2 emission goals without CCS

• Scenario 1: As is: Sleipner and Snøhvit: 1.7 M tonnes,

• Scenario 2: Mongstad: 0.5 - 1M tonnes

• Scenario 3: Large-scale sweetening, potentially w/ EOR

• 2-3 projects by 2050: 5 M tonnes

• Scenario 4: Industry and Power projects viable with incentives

• Industry located within the Nordic "Skagerrak cluster": 3 M tonnes

• large scale power plant w/CCS: 5 M tonnes

• Bio CCS in Finland and Sweden closer to 2040: 5 M tonnes

• Added Cost benefit from EOR

• Added cost benefit from import of CO2 from large European CCS projects

by pipeline

• Implementing Scenarios 2-4 allows storing 20 M tonnes CO2/year by CCS by

2050 and fulfil the CCS part of our climate goals!

Acknowledgements/Thank You/Questions

• This work is supported by the NORDICCS Centre, performed under the

Top-level Research Initiative CO2 Capture and Storage program, and Nordic

Innovation.

• The authors acknowledge the following partners for their contributions:

Statoil, Gassco, Norcem, Reykjavik Energy, CO2 Technology Centre

Mongstad, Vattenfall and the Top-level Research Initiative

(Project number 11029)

• NORDICCS Centre Contact Information: Dr. Nils A. Røkke, Vice President,

SINTEF, Nils.A.Rokke@sintef.no