New Carbon Capture and Storage Projects Funded – Flexible Funding 2022 Announcement

category

The UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Centre (UKCCSRC) are pleased to announce the 13 proposals that have been awarded funding in their recent Flexible Funding 2022 call.

A total of £368,792 was awarded to the projects, which all support the UK Government’s net-zero objectives and will last between 3-9 months.  For the first time, early career researchers (ECRs) were eligible to apply, with £100,000 ring-fenced for ECR applicants.  Five of the successful proposals are led by ECRs.

Ruqaiyah Patel, Joint Head of Energy and Decarbonisation at the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) said: “Further research into carbon capture and storage will enable us to capture, store and utilise greenhouse emissions from essential processes that cannot be decarbonised and potentially save the UK tens of billions of pounds over the next two decades.

“Building on the significant impact and success delivered by UKCCSRC across technology and policy development, this call was essential in supporting a broad range of CCS research projects that can support and help the UK achieve its net zero target by 2050.”

More information from four of the successful projects

Dr Amir Jahanbakhsh from Heriot-Watt University said: “Rockit is a multidisciplinary project developing a technique to eliminate CO₂ from the atmosphere safely and permanently. Mineralization of carbon through the reaction of CO₂ with rocks rich in calcium or magnesium converts CO₂ into solid rock. I am collaborating with colleagues from the University of Edinburgh to successfully investigate different aspects of this technique and potentially contribute to taking it to a higher stage of technology readiness.”

Dr Peter Clough from Cranfield University said: “Our project will advance and demonstrate a new technique for capturing fugitive amines released from CO₂ scrubbers, which has already passed a mathematical proof-of-concept and captured industry’s interest. The next step is to develop a physical prototype of the amine electrostatic precipitator (ESP), based on the design produced and modelling performed in collaboration with Petrofac, with previous UKCCSRC funding.  This technology will ensure CCS plants can adhere to current and future emission limits and protect the environment.”

Dr Salman Masoudi Soltani from Brunel University London said: “Biomass combustion ash is a challenging waste to manage. We have devised a practical pathway to utilise such waste and synthesise cost-effective yet efficient sorbents for carbon capture. The application of our waste-derived sorbents at scale must be investigated in terms of the associated environmental footprints and potential operational challenges.”

Dr Tohid Borhani from the University of Wolverhampton said: “This project aims to examine the downflow gas contactor (DGC) to capture CO₂ using different solvents. The impact of the study could be having a more efficient and cheaper carbon capture method that can be very promising for retrofitting cement factories, power plants and any other carbon emission sources. I am the first person to try to develop this DGC unit and use it for carbon capture, and the project, therefore, has great potential for more studies.”

Full list of successful applicants

• Efenwengbe Nicholas Aminaho (Robert Gordon University): Evaluation of Caprock Integrity for Geosequestration of CO₂ in Low Temperature Reservoirs
• Dr Tohid N.Borhani (University of Wolverhampton): Modelling and Simulation and Economic Evaluation of CO₂ Capture Using Downflow Gas Contactor (DGC) Process
• Dr Peter Clough (Cranfield University): Developing the understanding and prototyping of amine electrostatic precipitation
• Dr Katriona Edlmann (University of Edinburgh): CarbNET Carbonation negative emission technology
• Muir Freer (University of Manchester): Integration of CO₂ Capture at Dispersed and Remote UK Cement Production with CCS Infrastructure
• Dr Amir Jahanbakhsh (Heriot-Watt University): Rockit – the geochemistry of turning carbon to rock via geological CO₂ storage in basalts
• Professor Mathieu Lucquiaud (University of Sheffield): SMART – Solvent Management At Reduced Throughput – prototype demonstration
• Dr Salman Masoudi Soltani (Brunel University London): Investigation of Environmental and Operational Challenges of Adsorbents Synthesised from Industrial Grade Biomass Combustion Residues
• Dr Stavros Michailos (University of Hull): Co-DAC: Low-energy Direct Air Capture potential when combined with a Post Combustion Capture plant
• Dr Nejat Rahmanian (University of Bradford): Evaluation of properties of biomass wood pellets in power generation
• Dr Chenggong Sun (University of Nottingham): CO₂ Utilisation for Accelerated Carbonation Curing towards Net-Zero Circular Concrete Industry
• Professor Karen Turner (University of Strathclyde): Exploring wage-driven employment displacement in a supply constrained labour market as CCUS integrates into the UK economy
• Dr Yongliang Yan (Newcastle University): Machine Learning for Perovskite-based Oxygen Carriers Development in Chemical Looping Hydrogen Production

For further and ongoing information, please see the Flexible Funding 2022 page.

The recent sale by NRG of their 50% stake in the Petra Nova CO₂ capture facility for a paltry $3.6M, less than 1% of its construction cost, suggests that the economics of CO₂ capture for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) at this site are not very attractive.  While actual details of the plant performance are lacking, even in the official DOE project report, capture cost data published by the GCCSI (see above) indicated that solvent management costs alone were of the order of $10 per tonne of CO₂ captured.  Bearing in mind that the value of CO₂ for EOR implied in the 45Q tax credit mechanism is $15 per tonne (the difference between the $50/tCO₂ for saline aquifer storage and $35/tCO₂ for EOR), it appears that even Petra Nova’s full operating cost may not have been recoverable, let alone its capital costs.  In addition, some maintenance expenditure may have been found to be necessary after a shut-down in 2020, when oil prices were low.  The new sole owners, formerly 50% stakeholders, JX Nippon have apparently stated that “no clear timeline for the restart has been set, but we aim to be ready for resuming the CO₂ capturing facility in the second quarter next year (i.e. 2023) when the power plant is due to be back online,” also noting that the power plant suffered a fire in May this year. 

How did the Petra Nova project get here?  A possible answer is that the promise of low energy consumption for releasing captured CO₂ was allowed to trump all other considerations, in particular the ability to reclaim clean amines for reuse from the dirty mixture with flue gas contaminants and degradation products that amine solvents can turn into when capturing on coal plants for extended periods.  To achieve low energy consumption a blend of two or more amines is typically used, a high-capacity, low-energy component with relatively low intrinsic reactivity plus an accelerator amine to give acceptable overall reaction rates between the solvent and the flue gas as they meet in a contactor tower many tens of metres tall.  But, while these more sophisticated blends do achieve reduced energy compared to the proven, industry-standard monoethanolamine (MEA) solutions, they are intrinsically much more difficult to reclaim.  As a single component, MEA can be boiled out of the circulating solvent in a simple ‘kettle’ reboiler with no more difficulty than distilling whisky, and the energy used can be recovered as well when the MEA and water vapour are vented into the main solvent regeneration unit.  In contrast, for a blend of two or more components with inherently different boiling points, both recovering all of the original amines and also rejecting unwanted degradation products that co-distil becomes much more challenging.  This difficulty in reclaiming, plus intrinsically-higher costs for more complex amines, may explain the $10/tCO₂ cost reported by the GCCSI.  In addition, although apparently not discussed in connection with Petra Nova, low energy solvents, in particular the accelerator component if it is a secondary amine such as piperazine, may often readily react with NOx in the flue gases to make stable nitrosamine compounds that are highly carcinogenic, something that primary amines like MEA cannot do.

So, the solution to perhaps as much as a third of Petra Nova’s operating cost problem could be as easy as switching to a fully reclaimable, and low cost, solvent like MEA.  In a recent post-combustion capture FEED study using MEA it was estimated that solvent management (make-up and waste disposal) would cost $3.65/tCO₂, although on a GT flue gas with a high oxygen content rather than on a coal plant flue gas with lower oxygen but typically higher dust and SOx content.  Some extra operating energy costs would probably be incurred too with MEA, but the GCCSI figures suggest that energy has not been the dominant cost component and energy costs may become even less important as fossil power plant, and hence capture unit, load factors decrease with increasing renewable generation input to the Texas grid.  It is very likely, too, that using MEA in a post-combustion capture plant would be feasible for the flue gas at this site because, when the project was originally developed, it was proposed to use Fluor’s MEA-based Econamine FG Plus solvent.   So, perhaps if the existing plant were to be transferred to another operator at its apparent valuation of $7.2M (based on the recent sale), it might be operated successfully using MEA, with the added benefits of no risk of direct nitrosamine formation and also, because MEA is an ‘open-art’ solvent, the opportunity for full disclosure of all aspects of plant performance.  Of course, JX Nippon may still wish to continue with a proprietary solvent; in this case the MEA solvent option might still be useful as a reserve in case problems are encountered in the future.

GCCSI analysis of levelised cost of capture for BD3, Petra Nova and a proposed retrofit plant at Shand (data from GCCSI, Global Status of CCS Report, 2019) ‘Variable O&M’ costs are likely to be predominantly for solvent management and replacement. Results based on 8% discount rate, 30 years’ project life, 2.5 years’ construction time, capacity factor of 85%.  Cost data are normalised to 2017 values. Stated expected accuracy range: Boundary Dam and Petra Nova: -10% to +15%, Shand: -25% to +40%.

 

Jon Gibbins, UKCCSRC Director