wp1 - basis for the project studies

COCATE South Africa Workshop - November 8th , 2012 http://projet.ifpen.fr/Projet/cocate

COCATE

WP1 - Basis for the project studies

COCATE South Africa Workshop -

November 8th

, 2012

http://projet.ifpen.fr/Projet/cocate

WP1 Leader : M. Samuel, LHDPresenter : Y. Le Gallo, Geogreen



Work Package 1 -

Global capture to storage transport network

WP1 occurs in two distinct phases:

collecting and treating data

in order to build the basis for the rest of the project (provision of input data for each work package).

collecting the results

from the other work packages in order to put together an integrated methodology and strategy for the deployment of such large-scale CCS infrastructures.

Le Havre

Rotterdam


Flue gas/solvent collection networks

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4

Source 5

…

Pooling Centre

#1

Pooling Centre

#2

Hub

Source x

Rotterdam

Hub Rotterdam

Flue Gas/Solvent collection network

Le Havre


Work Package 1 –

First phase description

The first phase, purpose of this presentation, aims at defining a full network from sources to sinks, taking into consideration the following elements:

flue gas and CO2

pooling networks (D1.1.1, D1.1.2, D1.1.3, D1.1.2b)

two options to export CO2

one by pipeline, another by boats towards a hub located in Rotterdam

for an ultimate storage in the North Sea

(D1.1.5 and D1.1.6) (storage aspects are not included in the project).


CO2 Breakdown of emissions in Le Havre and Port Jérôme areas - 2009

9%

1%

28%

6%4%

27%

25%

Refinery #1

Refinery #2

Petrochemical industries

Others (Incinerator, car manufacture,glasswork,compressor test platform)Coal Power Plant

Chemical industries (Ammonia & urea production,industrial gases production)Cement Factory

TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS CONSIDERED: 14.5MTCO2/y

85 point sources Post Combustion

14.5MtCO2

/Year emitted

D.1.1.1 Data Collection and Pooling Scenario Definition


D.1.1.1 The 85 sources considered

Le Havre Area ~11 MTCO2

Port Jérôme Area ~3.5MTCO2


D.1.1.1 Distribution of CO2

concentrations

[CO2] distribution

1

9

34

37

31

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

<1 1<[CO2]<5 5<[CO2]<10 10<[CO2]<15 15<[CO2]<20 20<[CO2] ; max : 55.5

[CO2] (%wet vol)

Num

ber o

f sou

rces

Most of the concentrations are ranging from 5 to 15 % which is the typical concentration coming from combustion processes


D.1.1.1 Characteristics

of the flue gases

T from

70 to 470°C

Most of the temperature

from

100 to 250°C

P from

below

1 atm

(cement

factory) to 1.1 bara

H2

O from

5 to 30%

O2

~50% of the streams

have composition from

0 to 5%

~50% of the streams

have composition from

5 to 10%

NOx

from

0.0001 to 0.04%

SOx

from

0.001 to 0.6%

CO from

0.0002 to 0.4%

Other

possible components: VOC, N2

O, CH4

, HF, HCl, Ar, Heavy Metals.

Particulate

matters

from

0 to 200mg/Nm3

Some data are not measured thus not available:particles size, pH


D.1.1.1 5 Pooling

centers


D.1.1.1 2 alternative solutions in Le Havre


Main assumptions for the design of the pipelines

Flue gases are sent as they are at the bottom of the stack into the flue gas collecting network;

The design is made for the peak flowrate;

They are just boosted at the level of CO2

sources

The pipeline diameter cannot exceed 80”

(maximal value available in the API 5L standards);

The minimal thickness of the pipeline is calculated using the Maximal Allowable Operating Pressure and taking into account a corrosion allowance;

The change in elevation is taken into account;

A heat transfer is considered (with air when pipelines are aerial and with ground if buried)

D.1.1.2 Design and report on flue gas pooling network


Flue network:

The routing follows existing networks ;

Pipelines are either aerial or buried (outside of industrial sites)

Total length from 25 to 31 km

Pipeline diameters vary from 2”7/8 to 80”.

Powers required at the blower’s level vary from 0.01 to 175

MWe.

First identification of risks:

Pipeline size;

Transport of hot streams;

Leakage;

Corrosion;

Material defect;

Potential collision.

D.1.1.2 Design and report on flue gas pooling network


D.1.1.2 Pipeline Design: Example

of results

IGP

R2

IGP

R2

Blower's location Power required at the blower's level (MW)

B5-1 2,3+0,6B5-2 1,1+0,8+0,5B5-3 0,3

B5-4 1,1+0,5B5-5 0,4B5-6 0,3B5-7 1

B5-8 0,2B5-9 2,2

B5-10 0,9+0,6 B5-11 4,6+2,3B5-12 4,2+0,2B5-13 0,7

B5-14 (Inter 1) 1,2 B5-15 3,8+1,4+1+1,2+1+1

B5-16 (Inter 2) 2,4B5-17 0,3

Legend D (")806056524032282620

12 3/48 5/8

Blowers


D.1.1.2 Conclusion

Required power is unrealistic for some sources.

Proposal are considered: 1. Either change the assumptions and work on average flow rate

and not on maximal flowrate, or take into account the velocity limit (number of pipelines in parallel / higher power)

2. Study feasibility of local absorption, and transport the solvent (liquid) up to a regenerator

a new deliverable: D.1.1.2B


Re-design the flue gas collecting network considering the following assumptions

Flowrates

considered in this study are the maximal flowrates

on a monthly basis and not the instantaneous maximal flowrates

To cope with the velocity limitation specified in D.2.2.1, there are

two options:

The Low pressure option

Increase the pipe diameter and/or lay some pipelines in parallel

The High pressure option

Increase the pressure of the flue gas at the inlet of the network.

For high

flue gas

flowrates, study

of the amine transport instead of the flue gas

Absorption units

located

close to the emission points

Transport of the CO2 amine rich flue from the absorber to the regenerator located at the pooling centre level

Recycle of the “clean”

amine stream to the absorption site.

D.1.1.2b Alternative flue gas/amine collecting network design


D.1.1.2b Flue gas collecting Network –

Options compared

FG Blower

FG Blower

FG Compressor

FG Treatmentbefore Absorption

CO2Absorption

Amine Regeneration

CO2Absorption

CO2Absorption

Amine Regeneration

CO2Absorption

Amine Regeneration

Pump

Pump

Amine Regeneration




At the pooling centre levelNext to the stackAmine pipelines


D.1.1.2b Flue gas collecting Network –

Results

Amine transport makes sense as it allows decreasing the dimensions of the pipeline network and the power consumption

Limitation: Space for the absorber

Case #1

From

5 80”-diameter pipelines in parallel and 45MWe (LP) or 1 80”-diameter pipeline and 330MWe (HP)

To

2 pipelines in parallel of 32”

to 60”

diameter and a power consumption of 23MWe

Case #2

From

4 72”-diameter pipelines in parallel and 16MWe (LP) or 1 80”-diameter pipeline and 212MWe (HP)

To

2 pipelines in parallel of 22”

to 32”

diameter and a power consumption 4.5MWe

Other cases

Redesigns of some sections lead to 2 to 3 lines in parallel to cope with the velocity limit. There may be some space-related issues.

Might be interesting to delocalise the absorption units and use an amine network.

These results will be checked from a risk and economic standpoint


D.1.1.3 Design and report on CO2

collecting network

Links the pooling centres where CO2

is captured to a common hub (13 MTCO2

/y must be collected before their export to Rotterdam)

The hub location depends on the option of transport chosen for the export system (pipeline or ship)

Assessment of different options for transporting the CO2 up to those hubs


D.1.1.3 Banned areas for pipeline routing


Objective: store CO2 at the ship hub level at (-50°C, 6.5 bar)

Case #1: Gaseous CO2

Transport (single liquefaction unit)

Case #1a) Low Pressure Transport

Case #1b) High Pressure Transport

Case #2: Liquid CO2

Transport (multiple liquefaction units)

D.1.1.3 Transport up to the «

ship

hub »

-

Options compared



ship

hub »

-

Results

Energy Steel Insulation

Number of main

equipment pieces

Space @

pooling centre

Space @ hub

Total space Risk Costs

Liquefaction @ hub

Low pressure transport

- - 0 ++ / / /

WP3 WP4High pressure transport

+ + 0 + + - -

Liquefaction @ pooling centre ++ ++ - - - + +

++ Best solution+ Intermediate solution– Least interesting solution0 Not applicable/ Not assessed


Objective: send CO2 to an onshore pipeline (150 bar)

Case #1: Dense CO2

Transport

Case #2: Gaseous CO2

Transport


pipeline hub »

-

Options compared



pipeline hub »

-

Results

Energy Steel

Number of main

equipment pieces

Space @ the

pooling centre level

Space @ the hub

level

Total space

Risk Costs

Dense transport + + - - + +

WP3 WP4Gas transport - - + + - -

+ Best solution– Least interesting solution


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2020 2027

MTC

O2/y

Coal power plant AUP-1 Part of R1-17 Part of IGP Rest of Pooling #3 Rest of Pooling #2 Rest of Pooling #5 Pooling #4

4.3

13.1

Preliminary

deployment

strategy Input for D.1.1.5 –

D.1.1.6

A two-step deployment

strategy

2020: capture on the coal

power plant and on the easy

to capture CO2 (4.3MT/y)

2027: capture on other

sources (13.1MT/y)


D.1.1.5 Export of CO2

from

Le Havre to Rotterdam by pipeline

Send

the CO2

by onshore/offshore pipeline from

Le Havre to Rotterdam

Pipeline routing

Pipeline design

For both

onshore

and offshore1.

Design a pipeline for 13.1MT/y from

20202.

Design a pipeline for 4.3MT/y from

2020 then

a pipeline of 8.8 MT/y from

2027

For onshore

option1.

Third

party access

at

the level

of Antwerp

(captured

CO2

from Antwerp: 10 MT/y)


D.1.1.5 Pipeline routing

Assumptions for both onshore and offshore options

following existing pipeline routes,

avoid natural reserves,

minimize length

Specific assumptions for onshore routing

avoid densely populated areas,

avoid geographic depressions,

minimize height difference…

Specific assumptions for offshore routing

avoid shipping lanes,

avoid shipwrecks,

maintain constant depth for pipelines…

Data were gathered for France, Belgium, the Netherlands and the English Channel and the North Sea.

Resulting routes are suggested corridors and are by no means final routings considering the state of the study.


D.1.1.5 Pipeline routing

-

onshore

/offshore variants

Onshore route: 616kmOffshore route: 505km


D.1.1.5 Pipeline design

Assumptions

Onshore:

Pinlet=150bar;

Some pumping stations can be present along the way

Offshore:

Pinlet=200bar;

No pumping station along the way (prohibitive costs)

For both onshore and offshore:

Transport in dense phase (>80bar)

Design for the peak flowrate

Power requirements assessment considering the flowrate variation over a year.


D.1.1.5 Onshore

pipeline design , Options to be

compared

Case D (") Number of pumping stations

Building from 2020 a pipeline able to transport

13.1MtCO2 /y

34 1

32 1

30 2

28 2

24 5


4.3MtCO2/y

24 1

20 3

18 4

16 7


8.8MtCO2/y

28 1

24 2

20 4

18 7


D.1.1.5 Preliminary

risk

identification

Experience in the field of CO2

transport by onshore pipeline

Risks of failure mainly related to equipment failures and corrosion (considering US statistics on their CO2 network)

Experience is limited to areas with very sparse population (outside force is less an issue than in the natural gas transport field)

Considering offshore CO2

transport by pipeline, a single pipeline exists (Snøhvit) and no failure was reported so far (Pipeline began operation in 2009). But offshore pipelines could be affected by fishing equipment or ship collision. An option to decrease the risk is to cover the pipeline with rocks.


Send

the CO2 by ships

from

Le Havre to Rotterdam

Boundary: send

the CO2

coming

from

the ship

to an offshore pipeline (200 bar) continuously

Objective: Define

shipping schedules


from

Le Havre to Rotterdam by ship


Main assumptions for the design of the shipping schedule:

Ship capacity, velocity, routing;

Unloading / loading / approach / mooring procedure;

Buffer Storage capacity;

CO2

capture profile and continuous injection in an offshore pipeline.

Information from literatureFirst identification of risks:

Collision / allision,

Grounding,

Internal event on board ship

Loading / unloading


from Le Havre to Rotterdam by ship


D.1.1.6 Results

of shipping schedule

Example

for 13.1MT/y –

peak

flowrate

10,000 m3

10,000 m3

5,000 m3

10,000 m3

10,000 m3

10,000 m3

10,000 m3

5,000 m3

Le Havre, 16 hours

Rotterdam, 12 hours

15h 45mn

15h 45mn10,000 m3

10,000 m3

CO2 from the liquefaction

unit

CO2 to the offshore pipeline

Tank being filled / being emptied / emptied

Tank filled30,555 m3 ship

10,000 m3

10,000 m3

Cycle Amount of time (hr)

Corresponding volume of

captured CO2 in Le Havre (tCO2)

Corresponding volume of

captured CO2 in Le Havre

(m3)

Mooring in Le Havre 3 5,291 4,585 Loading 10 17,638 15,284 Departure from le Havre 3 5,291 4,585 Journey Le Havre - Rotterdam 15.76 27,793 24,084 Mooring in Rotterdam 2 3,528 3,057 Unloading 8 14,110 12,227 Departure from Rotterdam 2 3,528 3,057 Journey Rotterdam - Le Havre 15.76 27,793 24,084 Total over a cycle 59.52 104,973 90,964

Hypothesis

30,555m3 ship, (-50.3°C, 6.5bar),

16.5 knots, 260 nautical miles,

Unload in port continuouslyEstimation of

temporary storage,

number of ships,

fuel consumption.


Conclusion

The results obtained throughout WP1

is the bases for the other WPs

in COCATE

The second part of WP1, the strategy of deployment, will serve as a summary and recommendation for the project. It will recapitulate the results presented here as well as those from the other WPs.


THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION


Contact: Maud [email protected]


wp1 - basis for the project studies

Documents