Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report

This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. (For project preparatory technical assistance: All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.

Project Number: 46052 March 2015

People’s Republic of China: Roadmap for Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration and Deployment (Financed by the Carbon Capture and Storage Fund)

Component B: Oxy-fuel Combustion Technology Assessment Summary Report

Prepared by

Andrew Minchener, Team Leader (International CCS Expert) Zheng Chuguang, Deputy Team Leader (National CCS Expert) Liu Zhaohui, International Carbon Storage Expert Jiao Zunsheng, International Carbon Storage Expert Pei Xiaodong, International Economic and Financial Analyst Li Xiaochun, National Carbon Storage Expert Zhao Haibo, National Energy Economist Chen Ji, National Policy Analyst Gao Lin, National Road Mapping Expert Xi Liang, National Financial and Risk Analyst For: Department of Climate Change, National Development and Reform Commission (Executing Agency) Dongfang Boiler Group Co. Ltd (Implementing Agency)

Road Map for Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration and Deployment

Component B: Oxy-fuel Combustion Technology AssessmentSUMM ARY REPORT

March 2015

Andrew Minchener, Team Leader (International CCS Expert)Zheng Chuguang, Deputy Team Leader (National CCS Expert)Liu Zhaohui, International Carbon Storage ExpertJiao Zunsheng, International Carbon Storage ExpertPei Xiaodong, International Economic and Financial AnalystLi Xiaochun, National Carbon Storage ExpertZhao Haibo, National Energy EconomistChen Ji, National Policy AnalystGao Lin, National Road Mapping ExpertXi Liang ,National Financial and Risk Analyst

Road Map for Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration and Deployment

(TA8133-PRC)

Component B: Oxy-fuel Combustion Technology Assessment

Summary Report Andrew Minchener Team Leader (International CCS Expert)

Zheng Chuguang Deputy Team Leader (National CCS Expert)

Liu Zhaohui International Carbon Storage Expert

Jiao Zunsheng International Carbon Storage Expert

Pei Xiaodong International Economic and Financial Analyst

Li Xiaochun National Carbon Storage Expert

Zhao Haibo National Energy Economist

Chen Ji National Policy Analyst

Gao Lin National Road Mapping Expert

Xi Liang National Financial and Risk Analyst

November 2014

                                                                                                      

  

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction 2 WP1: Oxy-fuel Technical Consideration and Assessment 2.1 Description of the Technology 2.2 Global Development and Demonstration of Oxy-fuel Combustion

Technology 2.3 Strategic Analysis under the Project 2.4 Technical Guidelines for the Systems Design of a 200 MWe Oxy-fuel

Combustion Demonstration Power Plant 3 WP2: Pre-feasibility Assessment of the 200 MWe Oxy-fuel

Combustion Demonstration Power Plant Project 3.1 Techno-economic Evaluation of the 200 MWe Oxy-fuel Combustion

Demonstration Plant 3.2 Financing Prospects and Risk Management 3.3 Policy Analysis 4 WP3: Feasibility Study of Geologic CO2 Storage in the Ordos Basin

for the Proposed Shenhua Guohua Shenmu Oxy-fuel Combustion Plant Demonstration Project

4.1 Introduction 4.2 Brief Review of Best-Practice Manuals for Site Characterization 4.3 The Shenhua Guohua Shenmu CO2 Storage Demonstration Project 4.4 Site Selection for CO2 Storage Projects 4.5 Economic Evaluation Methodology of CCS Project 4.6 Need for Further Work 5 WP4: Assessment of Institutional Capacity Development

Opportunities for Dongfang Boilers and Other Stakeholders 5.1 Dongfang Boilers 5.2 Assessment of the Institutional Capacity of Dongfang Boilers and Its

Partners to Implement the Oxy-fuel-Based CO2 Capture Demonstration Project

5.3 Recommendations for Improvements in Institutional Capacity 6 Overall Conclusions and Recommendations 7 References

                                                                                                      

  

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Main Technical Indicators for a 200 MWe Power Plant

Table 2 Levelized Cost of Electricity for a 200 MWe Power Plant

Table 3 Influence of Plant Capacity

Table 4 Perceived Incremental Risk Exposure Specific to Oxy-fuel Technology

Table 5 Risk Response Strategies Applied in Project Risk Analysis

Table 6 Best-Practice Manuals and Guidelines Reviewed

Table 7 Criteria for Screening Reservoirs for CO2-EOR Suitability

Table 8 Criteria for Selecting Saline Aquifer Formations for CO2 storage

Table 9 Cost of Guohua CCUS Project

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Typical Oxy-combustion Process

Figure 2 Projected Contribution of CCS to CO2 Emission Reduction in the PRC

Figure 3 Projected Age Profile of the PRC’s Coal-Fired Power Fleet

Figure 4 Estimated Effect of Oxidant Purity on Avoidance Cost

Figure 5 Major Categories of Risk in Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage Projects

Figure 6 Topographic Map of Ordos Basin

Figure 7 Geological Map and Cross Section of the Ordos Basin

Figure 8 Priority Aquifer Sites

Figure 9 PRC Government Institutions Involved in Energy Policy Making and

Administration

                                                                                                      

  

ABBREVIATIONS

ASU – air separation unit

CCS – carbon capture and storage

CCUS – carbon capture, utilization, and storage

CFB – circulating fluidized bed

CO2 – carbon dioxide

CO2-EOR – carbon dioxide-enhanced oil recovery

CPU – carbon dioxide purification unit

DBC – Dongfang Boilers

FEED – front-end engineering design

GIS – geographic information system

Gt – gigatonne

HUST – Huazhong University of Science and Technology

IEA – International Energy Agency

IGCC – integrated gasification combined cycle

IPR – intellectual property rights

km – kilometer

LCOE – levelized cost of electricity

m – meter

Mt – million tonne

MWe – megawatt electrical

MWth – megawatt thermal

NETL – National Energy Technology Laboratory (US Department of Energy)

NOx – nitrogen oxides

PRC – People’s Republic of China

R&D – research and development

TA – technical assistance

UK – United Kingdom

US – United States

WP – work package

                                                                                                      

  

1 Introduction TA 8133-PRC, the Road Map for Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration and Deployment technical assistance (TA) project of the Asian Development Bank in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), comprised two parts. Component A was aimed at developing a carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) road map for the PRC, to guide the drafting of policies for achieving climate change objectives appropriate to the country’s political and economic circumstances. Component B was focused on building the capacity of key stakeholders for oxy-fuel combustion, which offers significant potential for CCUS in the PRC. This TA project has facilitated the full-chain demonstration of oxy-fuel combustion technology for CCUS. The in-depth assessment of the technical, economic, environmental, and social aspects of oxy-fuel use in the PRC has identified current gaps, challenges, synergies, and priority topics for the oxy-fuel CCUS demonstration. Project implementation was supervised by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the project executing agency, in close cooperation with the implementing agency, Dongfang Boilers (DBC), particularly in addressing issues related to oxy-fuel CCUS demonstration at the 200 megawatt electrical (MWe) Shenhua Guohua Shenmu coal-fired power plant. The project activities were grouped into four work packages (WPs). WP1 provided technical guidelines for oxy-fuel technology; WP2, a pre-feasibility assessment of the 200 MWe oxy-fuel coal-fired power plant; WP3, a pre-feasibility study of geological carbon dioxide (CO2) storage in the Ordos Basin for the proposed demonstration project; while WP4 identified needs and opportunities for DBC and other stakeholders in institutional capacity building. The various activities produced the following specific outputs: technical guidelines for oxy-fuel combustion, including the identification of critical

technology gaps and barriers, as well as possible solutions and pathways leading to a technology research and development (R&D) road map for oxy-fuel combustion in the PRC;

a pre-feasibility study of a 200 MWe oxy-fuel demonstration project in the PRC, including techno-economic evaluation, cost analysis, financial analysis, risk assessment, policy analysis, and carbon storage pre-feasibility assessment;

a CO2 storage characterization manual, including the identification of priority storage sites for the demonstration project; and

measures for assessing and strengthening the capacity to analyze, plan, and implement oxy-fuel combustion CO2 capture technology, together with possible public outreach initiatives.

  

This extended summary of the entire project is complemented with a self-contained detailed final report, with all the significant information obtained through the various analyses undertaken. 2 WP1: Oxy-fuel Technical Consideration and Assessment Oxy-fuel combustion is the process of burning fossil fuel using pure oxygen instead of air as the primary oxidant. This approach appears well suited to both new-build and retrofit applications since it maintains the original power plant structure by combining a conventional combustion process with a cryogenic air separation process. The concentration of CO2 in dry

                                                                                                      

  

flue gas can reach more than 80%, which can be increased to more than 95% using an established purification process to meet the needs of large-scale pipeline transportation and storage. The purification technology can also greatly reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, thereby enabling a synergetic removal of pollutants. 2.1 Description of the Technology Figure 1 presents the typical oxy-combustion process. High-purity oxygen from the air separation unit (ASU) is mixed with the recirculated flue gas (RFG). Part of this mixture provides the pulverized coal transport medium delivered into the furnace with the fuel, while the rest enters into the furnace as the oxidant to complete a process similar to traditional air combustion. RFG is used to maintain a high furnace temperature, reasonable boiler radiation and convective transfer. The flue gas that exits the boiler, which has a high concentration of CO2, has non-greenhouse-gas (GHG) pollutants removed and then passes into the gas purification unit to ensure the high purity of CO2 for transport and either subsequent utilization or storage.

Figure 1 Typical Oxy-combustion Process

Source: Alstom Power (2014).

2.2 Global Development and Demonstration of Oxy-fuel Combustion

Technology Oxy-fuel combustion technology has been the subject of considerable R&D work worldwide, covering system design, methods of calculating boiler performance and combustion, pollution control, operational flexibility, monitoring, and optimization. The R&D work has progressed from fundamental studies to laboratory rig trials, and then to industrial pilot-scale projects. Vattenfall of Sweden built the world’s first 30 megawatt thermal (MWth) oxy-fuel combustion device at the Schwarze Pumpe power station in Germany, in 2008. CS Energy of Australia built the world’s first, and so far largest, 30 MWe oxy-fuel combustion power generation demonstration plant in Callide, Queensland, in 2011. In Spain, the

                                                                                                      

  

government-owned CIUDEN Technology Development Centre built a 20 MWth pulverized oxy-coal boiler and the world's first 30 MWth fluidized bed test device. In the PRC, the Huazhong University of Science and Technology (HUST) in Wuhan built the first 3 MWth integrated oxy-fuel combustion test platform, which can capture up to 7,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. Following this useful R&D, in May 2011, HUST launched a 35 MWth oxy-fuel combustion industrial pilot demonstration project, a joint venture supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology and involving DBC, the Sichuan Air Separation Plant Group, and the Jiuda (Yingcheng) Salt Company. Construction should be completed before the end of 2014. Using an alternative technology variant that combines the advantages and characteristics of a circulating fluidized bed (CFB), Southeast University has undertaken a systematic research program of CFB oxy-fuel combustion. The university has established a 2.5 MWth oxy-fuel combustion CFB experimental system in cooperation with Babcox & Wilcox of the US. As yet, no large-scale oxy-combustion full-chain carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration power plants have been established anywhere in the world, although the US and UK governments are now taking such projects forward. In August 2010, the US Department of Energy announced the launch of an oxy-fuel demonstration project under a restructured FutureGen 2.0 program, as a public–private partnership with a total budget of $1.65 billion. This will comprise the retrofit of a 200 MWe coal-fired power plant in Meredosia, Illinois, with full-chain CCS oxy-combustion technology. The aim is to capture more than 1 million tonne (Mt) of CO2 each year, more than 90% of the plant’s CO2 emissions, and to reduce other emissions to minimal levels. The CO2 is to be transported and stored underground in deep saline aquifers nearby (Bellona 2013). In the UK, Capture Power (a consortium of Alstom Power, Drax Power, and British Oxygen) and the National Grid have established the White Rose CCS Project. A new state-of-the-art 426 MWe (gross) clean-coal power plant with full CCS, capturing about 2 Mt of CO2 per year, will be built. A planned CO2 transportation and storage infrastructure will link the power plant to an offshore saline aquifer in the North Sea, with the capacity to store the CO2 from the project and other possible CCS projects in the area. The UK government funded a front-end engineering design (FEED) study in 2014 and, together with the consortium, is expected to make a final investment decision about the construction of the plant in early 2015. On that timescale, the plant could be operational by 2020. In the meantime, the UK government has pledged up to $1.6 billion for CCS demonstration activities and the European Commission has confirmed the availability of about $400 million in funding for the project from its stimulus program. Enterprises in the PRC are also actively preparing large-scale oxy-fuel combustion technology demonstrations. In March 2012, the Shenhua Group took on a systems integration and design technology research project in preparation for the construction of an oxy-fuel combustion coal-fired power plant capable of capturing at least 1 Mt of CO2 per year. HUST and DBC, together with the Southwest Electric Power Design Institute and other units, are involved in this joint research project, which was officially launched in November 2012 and should be completed late in 2014. The project includes the technical and economic evaluation of a new construction and retrofit program, together with some preliminary research into boilers, burners, smoke coolers, and other key equipment.

                                                                                                      

  

2.3 Strategic Analysis under the Project This project task comprised the following: an examination of the strategic importance of CCS technology for power generation in

the PRC; an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and constraints of oxy-fuel

combustion technology in relation to CCS demonstration and deployment in the PRC energy sector, compared with other capture technologies;

an assessment of the competitiveness of oxy-fuel technology compared with alternative technologies with respect to medium- to long-term cost and emission reduction potential; and

the development of a possible oxy-fuel technology deployment road map for the PRC. 2.3.1 Strategic Importance of CCS Technology for Power Generation in the PRC In 2009, the PRC government pledged to reduce CO2 emission intensity (CO2 emissions per unit of gross domestic product) by 40%–45% by the year 2020, compared with 2005 levels (State Grid Corporation of China 2010). The focus has so far been on energy efficiency initiatives in industry, renewable-power opportunities, and increased nuclear power and hydropower generation. Significant numbers of small, obsolete coal power plants have been closed down and large, high-efficiency coal-fired power plants have been introduced. At the same time, the government has recognized the emergence of CCS as a very promising technology with great capacity for CO2 reductions in coal-fired power plants (Almendra et al. 2011; IPCC 2005; Meadowcroft and Langhelle 2009; Markusson, Shackley, and Evar 2012).

Figure 2 Projected Contribution of CCS to CO2 Emission Reduction in the PRC

Source: IEA (2010).

This point has been reinforced at length by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which has identified a need for CCS as a critical factor in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in countries with extensive fossil fuel use. IEA projections indicate that CCS will be an integral part of any lowest-cost mitigation scenario where the long-term average increase in global temperatures is limited to less than 4°C, and will need to be deployed widely in both power generation and industry. To limit the rise in global temperatures to acceptable levels, about

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

2020 2030 2040 2050

                                                                                                      

  

120 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 would need to be captured and stored across all regions between 2015 and 2050, and one-third of that total would have to come from the PRC (IEA 2010). According to the IEA report, CCS could contribute at least 18% of the required reduction in global CO2 emissions by 2050, as shown in Figure 2. This proportion exceeds the possibilities of a transition to renewable energy, and is more than triple the likely contribution of nuclear energy. 2.3.2 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Constraints of Oxy-fuel Combustion

Technology Demonstration and Deployment in the PRC Energy Sector Oxy-fuel combustion appears to be economically attractive compared with the two other coal-based CO2 capture processes, namely post-combustion and pre-combustion, and the likely levelized cost of CO2 avoided is similar to that of wind power and better than that of solar power. Like post-combustion capture and precombustion capture (in an integrated gasification combined cycle, or IGCC, power plant), this is a new technology and it must be evaluated in a large-scale, full-chain CCS demonstration power plant to produce fully credible, good-quality cost and performance data (Rubin et al. 2012; Singh 2013). However, because it combines conventional combustion with a cryogenic air separation process and thus maintains the original power plant structure, this technology seems well suited to both new-build and retrofit applications. Its major components, coal combustion and air separation, are mature technologies in widespread use. Oxy-fuel combustion shows considerable energy and environmental promise for coal-fired power plants with CCS, enabling the synergetic removal of conventional pollutants such as SOx, NOx, mercury, and particulates, as well as CO2, in the CO2 purification unit (CPU). At the same time, a recent study investigated the effect of parameters such as CO2 and oxygen purity, CPU and ASU performance and cost, and coal composition on the competitiveness of a 550 MWe net oxy-fuel combustion plant, compared with an equivalent plant using post-combustion capture (Borgert and Rubin 2013). A key conclusion was that increased restrictions on CO2 pipeline purity would have a relatively great effect on CO2 avoidance costs for the oxy-fuel plant, since further processing would be required in the CPU. Avoidance costs were shown to increase by up to 20% as CO2 exit purity varied from 88.3% to 99.9%, with high-sulfur coals adding roughly 20% more for all CO2 purities. In comparison with a modelled post-combustion system, oxy-fuel combustion struggled to compete on avoidance cost with anything other than low-sulfur coals and co-sequestration of flue gas contaminants, because of this effect. That said, it is important to put all such comparisons into perspective. Oxy-fuel combustion appears more suited to deployment as a base-load unit because of a relatively weak load-adjusting capability compared with the other options. Post-combustion capture in particular has reasonable CO2 capture capability at part load. Oxy-fuel combustion is also readily suitable for both new and retrofitted coal-fired plants, with the potential to reduce the overall cost of the CCS chain for deep aquifer storage where relatively low CO2 purity, say, less than 95%, can be used. In contrast, for EOR use, in which over 99% CO2 purity is generally needed, there would be an increased energy penalty for oxy-fuel combustion, taking away some of its perceived cost advantages.

                                                                                                      

  

2.3.3 Competitiveness of Oxy-fuel Combustion Technology Compared with Alternatives

There is considerable evidence that, with increasing deployment and technological improvements, clean-coal technologies can cost significantly less. Internationally, several major studies have examined the comparative costs of oxy-fuel and post-combustion capture applied to high-efficiency pulverized-coal power plants, and pre-combustion capture applied to IGCC. The results are generally consistent and suggest that post-combustion capture and oxy-fuel combustion with CCS are broadly comparable at present and will remain so as the installed capacity of both technologies increases and their costs come down. IGCC, on the other hand, is seen as more expensive and, although the difference narrows with increased installed capacity, will always be more expensive (Mott McDonald 2012). To examine this issue from the perspective of the PRC, a set of learning curves was developed, solely on the basis of input from that country. The results obtained suggest that oxy-fuel applications for power plants could be slightly more cost effective at the start than post-combustion capture and that the difference would be maintained even with increased deployment. The results also suggest that under the conditions selected for the PRC, IGCC-based pre-combustion capture is a much more expensive option but eventually becomes comparable with the other two technologies after a considerable period of deployment. However, at this early stage of technology development, especially in the case of oxy-fuel and IGCC, such assessments will be liable to considerable uncertainties in the PRC context. Consequently, while oxy-fuel may have a competitive edge, until large-scale technology demonstrations have been undertaken it will not be possible to ascertain a robust operating range for the technology or to determine the limitations, if any, of addressing the outstanding technical concerns. These concerns apply both to IGCC and, to a lesser extent, to post-combustion capture. 2.3.4 Oxy-fuel Technology Deployment Road Map for the PRC The selection of a suitable CO2 capture technology option for the PRC will depend on several factors, including sustainability, reliability, economic performance, technology transfer and intellectual property rights (IPR) prospects. Broadly speaking, sustainability considerations pertain to the resulting increase in energy and water use and the impact of any additional pollutant emissions. With regard to reliability, the development status of the technologies must be assessed, together with any barriers and risks to widespread deployment such as the need to adapt to current coal power technologies and the possibility of future improvements following extensive deployment. Economic factors include the current cost of CO2 avoidance and the potential for reducing such costs. Finally, issues that could hold back technology transfer and limit the scope for establishing IPR in the PRC are also important. At present, all three major CO2 capture technology options would appear to have opportunities to reach the commercial deployment stage, although their impact will depend on their readiness for opportunities as these arise. It will take time for the PRC to establish a series of commercial prototype coal power CCS demonstration projects, and a policy and regulatory framework for subsequent commercial deployment. Consequently, the critical time for determining how that deployment might go forward is likely to be at some point between 2025 and close to 2030. The current increase in coal power capacity is expected to have slowed significantly by then, such that the future rate of increase would be quite small, at least until 2040 (Figure 3). Therefore, if a major CCS introduction is envisaged around 2030,

                                                                                                      

  

most of it could well be through the retrofit of recently established plants rather than through the construction of new power plants with integrated CO2 capture. To implement such a plan, the PRC will need to ensure that a suitable proportion of these most modern plants, to be built in regions where CO2-EOR will be practicable, are CCS-ready and can easily accommodate a CCS retrofit.

Figure 3 Projected Age Profile of the PRC’s Coal-Fired Power Fleet

Source: Original work by the project team

On that basis, both oxy-fuel combustion and post-combustion capture can be considered for retrofit and new-build options, and both can be made CCS-ready. In contrast, pre-combustion capture as part of an IGCC system will be suitable only for a new-build plant, and hence cannot be made CCS-ready. Its new-build suitability also assumes that the core IGCC technology can be shown to perform in line with required power station operating practices, at a much lower capital investment. Around 2030, therefore, the possibility of introducing new IGCC plants with pre-combustion capture included is likely to be limited, but by 2040 the opportunities may be more promising (Figure 3). All of this suggests that the initial focus for CCS will be on large, high-efficiency ultra-supercritical pulverized coal units, each with a capacity of 1,000–1,300 MWe, as such high-efficiency low-emissions (HELE) power plants are best suited to the inclusion of CO2 capture in a CCUS system. If a choice must be made between oxy-fuel combustion and post-combustion capture, regional considerations are likely to prevail. In regions experiencing water stress, oxy-fuel combustion, which requires minimal amounts of steam for the CO2 capture equipment, recovers the water vapor in flue gas streams and makes water available for other uses, will be a more attractive proposition than water-intensive post-combustion capture. Given current water resources and the future distribution of newly built coal-fired power stations in the PRC, about 30%–40% of CCS-ready power stations should have the capability to subsequently incorporate oxy-fuel technology. The exact capacity depends on the extent of CCS deployment by 2030, but levels close to 100 GWe have been suggested.

Besides defining the schedule for a technology demonstration in the near term, there is a need for R&D activities to support the wider use of oxy-fuel equipment and systems integration technology with better energy performance and lower-cost critical components. These

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0~5 5~10 10~15 15~20 20~25 25~30Share of total installed cap

acity

Years of plant operation

2030

2040

2050

                                                                                                      

  

activities will include technology innovation to lower the cost of ASUs, and the development of a CO2 purification unit (CPU) with simultaneous separation of gaseous impurities, as both possibilities can be expected to reduce the overall oxy-fuel combustion technology costs significantly. A road map for the period up to 2025–2030 should therefore meet the following objectives: Establish a near-term, early demonstration of the technology such that all issues can be

addressed at a scale from which commercial units can subsequently be designed and costed with confidence.

Determine the scope for the scale-up of oxy-fuel equipment and systems integration technology through – research into oxy-fuel scale-up design principles; – the development of lower-cost oxy-fuel combustion boilers, combustion systems,

condensers, and other key equipment; – Implement a systems integration and technology optimization study of the whole

oxy-fuel combustion process using thermal coupling to significantly reduce the overall cost of the system; and

– research into the dynamic characteristics and regulation of the oxy-fuel combustion thermal system.

Determine the scope for the improvement of large-scale air separation and compression systems by – studying large-scale cryogenic air separation technology, which meets the

requirements and dynamic characteristics of oxy-fuel combustion; – exploring new, energy-saving oxygen generation technology, and studying techniques

of purifying and compressing the CO2 flue gas stream from oxy-fuel combustion; and – reducing operating costs, and developing the corresponding domestic support

capability. 2.4 Technical Guidelines for the Systems Design of a 200 MWe Oxy-fuel

Combustion Demonstration Power Plant The main goals set for the systems design were to establish the basis for a 200 MWe coal-based oxy-combustion demonstration project; achieve a boiler design efficiency of at least 94% (in low-heat, oxygen-enriched

combustion conditions); ensure a CO2 emissions concentration of at least 80% in the boiler flue gas (for a 75%

transformation project or better); limit the decrease in power efficiency in the oxy-combustion system versus a comparable

air combustion system to not more than 10% (excluding CO2 compression); and ensure that power plant pollution emissions meet environmental legislation requirements. Detailed assessments of the options, the related technical and economic issues, and the scope for future improvements in systems design and integration are found in the main report.

                                                                                                      

  

3 WP2: Pre-feasibility Assessment of the 200 MWe Oxy-fuel Combustion Demonstration Power Plant Project

A pre-feasibility assessment of the use of oxy-fuel combustion CO2 capture technology in a 200 MWe coal-fired power plant was made to support the implementation of the intended demonstration project of Shenhua Guohua Power. This assessment comprised a series of techno-economic evaluations of the proposed demonstration plant, consideration of the improvements to be gained through the subsequent scale-up of the plant to commercial operations, a financial analysis of project resources plus a financial risk analysis, and a policy analysis to identify ways of enhancing demonstration and deployment opportunities for CCS in the PRC, with a focus on oxy-fuel combustion. 3.1 Techno-economic Evaluation of the 200 MWe Oxy-fuel Combustion

Demonstration Plant The more promising design for such a demonstration plant was identified to be one that can accommodate both air combustion and oxy-fuel combustion, and is therefore flexible enough to meet the varied operating needs during a large-scale demonstration of the technology. The source information for the main technical indicators for this option was obtained from the Fire Power Limit Design Reference Cost Index (2012 Level), and is presented in Table 1. For the retrofit of a 200 MWe coal-fired power plant with oxy-combustion, including a LIFAC (Limestone Injection into the Furnace and Activation of Calcium Oxide) desulfurization device, the results indicate that the electricity cost would be CNY686 per megawatt-hour (MWh), 1.7 times that of the corresponding conventional plant equipped with a limestone–gypsum desulfurization system and a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) denitrification system. The static investment cost is 1.2 times, and the net power output is 0.6 times, that of the conventional plant. The increase in the static investment cost is mainly due to the high commercial price of the ASU, and the significant decrease in the net power output is due to the high power consumption of the ASU and CPU systems. The economic performance of oxy-combustion technology is most influenced by coal price, ASU power consumption, and CO2 capture efficiency, according to sensitivity analysis. Most importantly, as plant capacity increases, the economic characteristics improve significantly because of the lower investment cost per unit and higher thermal efficiency. The deployment of oxy-combustion technology on a scale in line with the NDRC requirement of at least 600 MWe capacity would therefore appear to have considerable promise. For subsequent commercial-scale units, the associated techno-economic analysis indicates a resulting net efficiency loss of 11%-12% in a simple integrated system, which could be limited to 7%-9% in an advanced integrated system. Some technical issues related to fuel flexibility and the potential impact on CO2 quality for subsequent use or storage still have to be resolved. Parametric plant-based studies are needed to determine a viable operating window for the technology alongside the impact of coal sulfur content and gas quality. However, these are not technology showstoppers. Oxy-fuel combustion is ready for large-scale demonstration to address the remaining uncertainties and to establish a likely market niche for the time when CCS can be commercially deployed.

                                                                                                      

  

The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for the oxy-fuel option compared with the conventional 200 MWe unit is given in Table 2. The results in Table 2 apply to the demonstration-scale unit; they would be much larger for a commercial-scale unit. Table 3 gives an indication of the positive impact arising from oxy-fuel combustion. In practice, the benefit would be greater because oxy-fuel combustion would be deployed in advanced coal-fired power plants of at least 600 MWe capacity, with supercritical or ultra-supercritical steam conditions.

Table 1 Main Technical Indicators for a 200 MWe Power Plant

Item Quantity

Unit Air Condition Oxygen Condition Gross capacity megawatt 200 200 Duration of construction year 2 2 Duration of operation year 20 20 Plant reference price CNY/kilowatt 4,349 4,349 Cost of coal (with value-added tax)

CNY/tonne 800 800

Annual operating hours hour 5,000 5,000 Desulfurization efficiency (without desulfurization equipment)

% 40

Desulfurization efficiency (with desulfurization equipment)

% 95 95

Denitrification efficiency (without denitrification equipment)

% 40

Denitrification efficiency (with denitrification equipment)

% 80 80

Cost of denitrification equipment CNY/kilowatt 185.7 185.7 Cost of desulfurization equipment

CNY/kilowatt 121.65 121.65

Desulfurization power consumption

% 1.5 0.5

Denitrification power consumption

megawatt 0.217 0.07

Loan proportion % 80 80 Repayment term of local loan year 15 15 Long-term interest rate of local loan

% 6.55 6.55

Limestone price (including taxes) CNY/tonne 100 100 Gypsum price (including taxes) CNY/tonne 50 50 Denitrification price (including taxes)

CNY/tonne 4,000 -

ASU price CNY million 120 ASU power consumption megawatt 59.64 CPU investment coefficient % 0.025 CPU power consumption megawatt 17.56 Boiler efficiency % 92.5 ~ 95 Electricity used in power plant % 5.64 - Concentration of CO2 emissions % ~ 14.6 ≥ 80 Coal consumption grams/kilowatt-

hour 319.3 -

Water price CNY/tonne 0.5 0.5 Sewage treatment price CNY/tonne 1.6 1.6 Sewage discharge tonnes/hour 120 120 Operation and maintenance rate % 1.5 1.5

                                                                                                      

  

Item Quantity

Unit Air Condition Oxygen Condition for desulfurization system Fixed assets formation rate % 95 95 Ratio of remaining value % 5 5 Depreciation period year 15 15 Repair rate % 2 2 Proportion of intangible and deferred assets

% 5 5

Period of depreciation and amortization

year 5 5

Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide pollution equivalent standard charge

￥0.5/0.95 kilogram ￥0.5/0.95 kilogram

CO2 capture efficiency % 90 Unit capacity (backup member 10%)

person 100 112

Annual salary/person CNY 50,000 50,000 Welfare % 60 60 Cost of materials CNY/megawatt-

hour 6 6

Other expenses CNY/megawatt-hour

12 12

Gypsum purity % 90 90 Gypsum market price CNY/tonne 50 50 Income tax % 25 25

ASU = air separation unit, CO2 = carbon dioxide, CPU = carbon dioxide purification unit. Source: Calculations by the project team

Table 2 Levelized Cost of Electricity for a 200 MWe Power Plant

Plant

Option

LCOE

（CNY/megawatt）

LCOE Component (%)

Fuel

Depreciatio

n

Financing Profit

Incom

e Tax Other

Conventio

nal

453.2 59.6 15.5 4.6 12.8 3.2 4.3

Oxy-

combustio

n

807.0 55.8 12.3 5.4 11.2 3.7 11.5

Table 3 Influence of Plant Capacity

Capacity (megawatt)

LCOE (CNY/megawatt-hour) CO2 Avoidance

Cost (CNY/tonne)

CO2 Capture Cost

(CNY/tonne) Conventional Oxy-

combustion 200 403 686 345 196 300 400 570 203 142 600 362 511 189 134

1,000 322 447 174 1,265 CO2 = carbon dioxide, LCOE = levelized cost of electricity. Source: Calculations by the project team

                                                                                                      

  

3.2 Financing Prospects and Risk Management Oxy-fuel combustion, like all other CCS options, will require large-scale investment and will face risks and barriers, as presented below. 3.2.1 Critical Technical Issues Linked with Financial and Operating Decisions Oxygen production is the most significant cost component of an oxy-fuel project (Simmonds and Walker 2005a; Rezvani et al. 2007). The ASU alone could account for more than 30% of the total capital cost of an oxy-fuel power plant. Although a number of novel air separation processes, such as chemical looping, ion transport membranes, and ceramic membranes, are being developed (Simmonds and Walker 2005a), the only economically viable and proven technology at present is cryogenic distillation. ASU design and the selection of a cycle in cryogenic distillation need to take efficiency, capital cost, and safety issues into account (Higginbotham et al. 2011). The usual consideration for investors would be whether to invest additional capital for higher efficiency, thus increasing the net power output of the oxy-fuel power plant and lowering the operating cost of CO2 capture.

Figure 4 Estimated Effect of Oxidant Purity on Avoidance Cost

Source: Borgert and Rubin (2013).

The purity of the oxygen product is an important economic and technical consideration in the design of an oxy-fuel CO2 capture power plant. The separation energy requirement (electricity consumption) would be less for low-purity oxygen than for high-purity oxygen. The benchmark is 95% purity, which is sufficient for oxy-fuel power plants (Xiong, Zhao, and Zheng 2011). Adding an intercooling waste energy recovery system would significantly reduce the energy penalty but increase the capital cost (Kakaras et al. 2007; Romeo, Lara, and Gonzalez 2011). The effect of oxidant purity on mitigation cost is more significant for expensive coal (Borgert and Rubin 2013), as shown in Figure 4. A likely disadvantage of oxy-fuel CO2 capture technology is the possible high level of impurities, such as nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), in the captured CO2 stream, and it might be cost effective to remove these, as mentioned earlier. Investors in oxy-fuel CCS projects and operators of such projects must consider and manage this risk, to meet the essential regulatory requirements (Wall and Stanger 2009). Increasing restrictions on CO2 exit purity would translate directly into higher avoidance costs (Borgert and Rubin 2013).

                                                                                                      

  

3.2.2 Financing Options The marginal cost of developing a large-scale oxy-fuel CO2 capture power plant is high (e.g. 70% higher) compared with the marginal cost of conventional power plant development. Moreover, the PRC currently has neither a premium tariff scheme nor a carbon support scheme to bridge the financing gap. Besides conventional equity investment from shareholders and loans from commercial banks, early large-scale commercial oxy-fuel projects in the PRC may therefore require a combination of financial strategies, such as the following, to improve their financial prospects: the carbon market; support from foreign governments; support from the national and regional governments in the PRC; grants and loans from domestic and multilateral development banks; equity investments and loans from venture capital; and special funds in support of CCS industrial projects.  

In the absence of a strong price signal from the carbon market, these are important sources of financing for large-scale oxy-fuel demonstration projects. Potential co-financing mechanisms include the following: private financing mechanisms, such as:

– own equity from energy companies, – loans from commercial banks, – venture capital and financing from smaller investors, and – financial support from vendors;

public financing mechanisms, such as: – grants from the PRC national government, – grants from the PRC provincial and municipal governments, – grants from foreign governments, – multilateral development bank financing, – the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and – the PRC carbon market; and

other CCS financing options, such as: – emission performance standards, – the sale of CO2 for EOR, – premium electricity tariffs, and – plant operational and investment flexibilities.

3.2.3 Risk Management for the Oxy-fuel CCUS Project The aim of risk assessment and management is to provide transparency for the oxy-fuel project developer with regard to risk exposure and potential hazards. Four specific areas are covered: overview of the risk assessment methodology; list of major risks in the oxy-fuel CCUS project; mitigation strategies for major project risks; and risk transfer mechanisms for major project risks.

                                                                                                      

  

Figure 5 Major Categories of Risk in Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage Projects

Source: ClimateWise (2012)

Figure 5 summarizes the categories of risk in the CCS process. These risks should be situated in the wider business context for CCS project developers, which introduce further risks. As shown in Table 4, a number of studies have examined the incremental risks in oxy-fuel CO2 capture. The present study built on their findings and developed a risk registration and management model. In addition, the study developed risk response strategies under the five main themes shown in Table 5.

Table 4 Perceived Incremental Risk Exposure Specific to Oxy-fuel Technology

Risk Exposure Potential Trigger Impact

Technical Solutions and

Mitigation Measures

Technology performance

Air in-leakage in the combustion process

Reduced efficiency of the process

Identify and localize air leakage

Changes in laws and regulations

Stricter regulation of CO2 gas quality

Increased costs and energy penalty

Reserve space for further purification

Health and safety Explosion of air separation unit or boiler

Injury; capital loss Take out an insurance policy; strengthen oxygen management

Energy and carbon prices

Changes in energy market (e.g., from base-load to peak-load demand)

Reduced efficiency; failure to meet market demand

Design the plant to meet rapid load change environment and store energy

Source: Based on studies by Jordal et al. (2005); Wall (2009, 20); Preusche et al. (2011); and Perrin et al. (2012).

The five highest-scoring demonstration risks specific to oxy-fuel CCS are: insufficient project financial support (market, policy, and regulatory risks); failure to integrate the system or failure of one part of the chain (operational risk); faster-than-expected degradation of the retrofitted plant (operational risk); technology scale-up failure (operational risk); and public opposition to pipeline construction (policy and regulatory risk).

                                                                                                      

  

Details of the possible mitigation strategies are given in the main report.

Table 5 Risk Response Strategies Applied in Project Risk Analysis

Risk Response Strategy Definition Tolerate The exposure is tolerable without any further

action being taken Treat Active control is taken to limit the risk to an

acceptable level Transfer The risk is transferred to a third party through

insurance, financial mechanisms, or other contractual arrangements

Terminate The risk can be treated or controlled only if the activity is terminated

Take the opportunity An option to be examined when tolerating, treating, or transferring a risk: Is there a greater advantage to be gained from exploiting a positive opportunity? Are the controls adequate?

Source: HM Treasury (2004).

3.3 Policy Analysis The policy framework for CCUS development in the PRC comprises policies and measures, laws and regulations, and a regulatory governance system. These need to be considered in the context of the overall structure of the PRC’s power sector and pricing system reform in the sector. The extent to which the price of electricity will be market based and competition is introduced in different segments of the power market will influence the deployment of CCUS technology in the power sector. Alongside market issues, there are increasingly strong environmental policies limiting emissions of various pollutants in the power sector, which may well create a positive impact on the deployment of oxy-combustion CO2 capture technology. In setting up a CCS policy support package, the PRC should carefully consider the approaches being taken by other countries and use their experience as a reference in determining how best to adapt the approaches to suit the national conditions and institutional framework of the PRC. 4 WP3: Feasibility Study of Geologic CO2 Storage in the Ordos Basin

for the Proposed Shenhua Guohua Shenmu Oxy-fuel Combustion Plant Demonstration Project

Adequate and effective CO2 storage is fundamental to the success of any full-chain CCS demonstration project. Accordingly, a manual for pre-selection site characterization appropriate for use in the PRC was developed. It contains procedures, techniques, and tools for geological CO2 storage site characterization, monitoring, and verification, as well as for a cost assessment of the site characterization for a potential full-scale CO2 storage project, as will be required for the proposed Shenhua Guohua Shenmu oxy-fuel combustion CCS demonstration project.

                                                                                                      

  

The following tasks were undertaken: review of existing manuals, guidelines, standards, and best practices for site

characterization; preliminary analysis of the major technical, safety, and environmental challenges, based

on the preliminary characteristics of the selected site; assessment of the basic requirements for site investigation, monitoring, and verification

for a full-scale storage project, based on the challenges listed in the previous section; and development of a site characterization manual as required for the demonstration project,

including procedures, techniques, and tools for site characterization, monitoring, and verification, to ensure site safety as required for the demonstration project, and to support the preparation of geological CO2 saline aquifer storage projects for the accelerated deployment of geological CO2 storage activities in the PRC.

 

4.1 Introduction For CCS, several CO2 storage schemes have been proposed, including storage in deep saline aquifers, ocean sediments, un-minable coal beds, and depleted oil and gas reservoirs,. While the latter scheme is seen as attractive in the near term for CCUS if EOR is possible, storage in deep saline aquifers will ultimately be required to achieve the levels of CO2 removal deemed necessary to limit climate change. This approach has been applied in the Ordos Basin and a promising storage site some 70 kilometers (km) from the power plant has been identified. A strategic approach, involving the sale for EOR of 10% of the expected 1 Mt/year of CO2 captured and the storage of the remaining 90% in a saline aquifer close to the oil field has been proposed and costed. At the same time, under the proposed approach, the brine extracted from the aquifer is to be sold for desalination in this water-stressed region, thereby generating additional revenue. 4.2 Brief Review of Best-Practice Manuals for Site Characterization CO2 storage in saline aquifers requires its injection into the reservoirs to displace existing saline fluids, thus increasing the reservoir pressure or hydrodynamic energy. Performance and risk assessments, covering injectivity, seal integrity, fluid displacement, and pressure management, are the more important elements of a best-practice manual for any geologic CO2 storage project, although time frames, financial situations, public acceptance, and regulatory requirements are also considered. Considerable work has been done worldwide to develop geological site characterization manuals, guidelines, standards, and best practices, which have been published by international organizations, regional institutes, and national laboratories (CO2CRC 2008, 2011, 2013). As listed in Table 6, these manuals consider storage capacity estimation; site selection and characterization for CO2 storage projects; guidelines for CO2 capture, transport, and storage; technical bases for CO2 storage; CCS site characterization criteria; and guidelines for the selection and qualification of CO2 geological storage sites and projects, the assessment of regional CO2 storage potential, site selection, storage capacity estimation, the classification of storage capacity, and methods of site characterization monitoring, verification, and accounting. Recently, the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the US Department of Energy published updated project guidelines for geological CO2 storage, Best Practices for Site Screening, Site Selection, and Initial Characterization for Storage of CO2 in Deep Geological

                                                                                                      

  

Formations. These guidelines describe the evaluation processes involved in each phase of a geological CO2 storage project, and provide best-practice guidelines for project developers. The NETL (2013) best-practice manual divides the evaluation processes for a geological CO2 storage project into three phases: exploration, site characterization, and implementation. Because of the short history of CO2 storage practices, the NETL document is focused on the exploration phase. This phase is further divided into three project subclasses: potential subregions, selected areas, and qualified sites. These subclasses correspond to the three stages of evaluation during the exploration phase, namely, site screening, site selection, and initial characterization (NETL 2013).

Table 6 Best-Practice Manuals and Guidelines Reviewed

Manual or Guideline Acronym Coverage CO2STORE Best practices for the storage of CO2 in saline aquifers CCP A technical basis for CO2 storage DNV CO2QUAL Guidelines for selection and qualification of sites and projects for

geologic storage of CO2 DNV CO2WELLS Guidelines for risk management of existing wells at CO2 geologic

storage sites DNV RP-J203 Geologic storage of CO2 LBNL/GEOSEQ Geologic CO2 sequestration: from site evaluation to implementation NETL MVA Best practices for monitoring, verification, and accounting of CO2

stored in deep geologic formations NETL GS Best practices for geologic storage formation classification:

understanding its importance and impact on CCS opportunities in the US

NETL SS Best practices for site screening, site selection, and initial characterization for storage of CO2 in deep geologic formations

NETL RA Risk analysis and simulation for geologic storage of CO2 NETL WM Best practices for CO2 storage systems and well management activities WRI CCS Guidelines for CCS IEA Weyburn Best-practice manual based on lessons learned from Weyburn project CSA Z741-12 Geologic storage of CO2 AU1 Guiding principles for CO2 capture and geologic storage AU2 Environmental guidelines for CO2 capture and geologic storage (2009) EC1 CO2 storage life cycle risk management framework (Guidance Document

1) EC2 Characterization of the storage complex, CO2 stream composition,

monitoring, and corrective measures (Guidance Document 2) OSPAR Guidelines for risk assessment and management of storage of CO2

streams in geologic formations EPA Geologic sequestration of CO2: underground injection control well

project plan, Program Class VI CCS = carbon capture and storage, CO2 = carbon dioxide. Source: CO2CRC (2011, 2013).

For any geological CO2 storage project, an analysis of a project’s needs, organization, management structure, and resources (project definition) must be conducted, and a management plan must be prepared at the start of the project and then revisited right before

                                                                                                      

  

each stage, to guide the evaluation. The project definition consists of the project scope; CO2 management strategy; evaluation criteria used in qualifying and ranking potential CO2 geologic storage regions, areas, and sites; technology resources; multidisciplinary teams; available funding; project evaluation schedules; and identified project risks and mitigation plan (NETL 2013). The first step in the evaluation process, site screening, involves the evaluation of subregions that are potentially suitable for CO2 geological storage. The analysis in this step relies on readily accessible data that can be obtained from public sources such as government-owned geological surveys, departments of natural resources, published and open-file reports and atlases, and academic research. Some data may also be acquired from private firms such as oil and gas, coal, and mineral companies, and private vendors of related industry data. Existing data can be coupled with mapping software such as geographical information systems (GISs) in assessing subregions that meet the criteria identified in the project definition. The most promising potential subregions are highlighted for further consideration (evaluation), while those that do not meet the defined evaluation criteria are eliminated from consideration. The second step in the evaluation process, site selection, uses additional data and further analysis to narrow down the potential storage sites identified during site screening. Most of the data needed to complete this evaluation is readily accessible, but the data may vary in quantity and quality depending on the location of a site and may need to be supplemented with site-specific data. Technical information to be considered includes data from existing core samples, available seismic surveys, well logs, records and sample descriptions from operating or abandoned wells, and other available geological data. An initial estimate of the area of review is developed during this stage. As part of this analysis, the developer should outline a site development plan, including an economic feasibility analysis, for each selected area. At the completion of this stage, the developer will have a list of the most promising qualified sites for the next stage of evaluation. Initial characterization, the third step in the evaluation process, continues the evaluation of one or more of the higher-ranked qualified sites. During this stage, the developer assesses all the baseline, geological, regulatory, site, and social issues related to the qualified sites, and, after sufficient analysis, either confirms or rejects a site as a contingent storage resource for further site characterization. While the analysis in site screening and site selection relies primarily on existing data, initial characterization involves acquiring new, site-specific data by using investigative tools and techniques. These tools include data collection (e.g., seismic and well logging, core analysis, injectivity tests), three-dimensional (3-D) mathematical modeling of the selected sites, and evaluation of various injection scenarios through numerical simulation. These geological CO2 storage site evaluation processes and site development guidelines described in the NETL (2013) best-practice manual were comprehensively used in selecting and evaluating the subregions, areas, and sites for the proposed Shenhua Guohua Shenmu oxy-fuel combustion demonstration project, which requires the storage of the captured CO2 in a geological formation within the northern Ordos Basin. 4.3 The Shenhua Guohua Shenmu CO2 Storage Demonstration Project The intended oxy-fuel combustion demonstration project is in the northeast Ordos Basin. The

                                                                                                      

  

basin has an area of 370,000 square kilometers and is the second-largest sedimentary basin in the PRC. It covers parts of Shaanxi, Shanxi, and Gansu provinces and the Ningxia and Inner Mongolia autonomous regions (Figure 6).

Figure 6 Topographic Map of Ordos Basin

Source: Activities by the project team

A major national energy and chemical industry development center in the Ordos Basin accounts for nearly 6% of the PRC’s natural gas reserves, 13% of its coal-bed methane reserves, and 39% of its coal reserves. The basin has a long petroleum exploration history: the first oil well was drilled over 100 years ago, and more than 50 oil and natural gas fields have since been discovered in the Ordos Basin, although not in the region close to the proposed CCS demonstration project.  This petroleum exploration and development experience and the body of literature published by the academic community could provide basic data for regional screening, site selection, and initial characterization in the exploration phase of the Shenhua Guohua Shenmu geological CO2 storage demonstrate project. 4.3.1 Project Management Plan The primary objectives of this storage project in the Ordos Basin are as follows: to demonstrate that the selected formations of Ordovician Majiagou limestone, and

Triassic Liujiagou and Yanchang sandstone, which predominate in the region, have adequate injectivity and storage space to accept the expected amount of captured CO2 from the nearby demonstration project;

to determine that the Upper Paleozoic and Mesozoic containment formations (mudstone, shale, and rock salt layers) have sufficient sealing capacity to retain the injected CO2; and

to gain a comprehensive understanding of the major scientific, technical, safety, and environmental challenges for a full-scale CO2 storage project, as part of the overall oxy-fuel combustion demonstration project.

CO2 management strategy

                                                                                                      

  

The maximum amount of CO2 for injection will be 1 Mt per year, while the concentration of the captured CO2 from the oxy-fuel combustion power plant will be over 95%. The captured CO2 will be compressed to supercritical phase (> 31.1°C and > 7.38 megapascals [MPa], and then will be transported by pipeline to the injection site. Some 50 Mt of CO2 is to be injected over 15 years.   Evaluation criteria For this proposed demonstration project, the geological CO2 assessment should determine whether the targeted formations have sufficient storage capacity and injectivity to accept and

retain the injected CO2; land is available, and topographic features are suitable for the geologic CO2 storage

infrastructure to be constructed, taking into account possible public acceptance considerations;

various risks, including financial, political, liability, technical, and economic uncertainties, are acceptable for project development, and possible mitigation options are available; and

the costs of the project are within the updated budget. Funding and skilled personal resources Both funding and skilled personnel resources must be identified in the project management plan. Since geological CO2 storage practice is an emerging industry, technical and regulatory uncertainties could delay the project. A contingency fund therefore needs to be included in the project budget. A functional team composed of a geologist, a geophysicist, an engineer, modeling and fluid flow simulation experts, an environmental specialist, and business, legal, and social development experts should be formed to undertake the various activities. Project schedule A realistic schedule includes the time required to complete the pre-feasibility study of the storage component of the overall demonstration project. An unanticipated data collection or reanalysis requirement could significantly delay the project. Therefore, a time contingency should be included in the initial project schedule to allow for possible repeat analyses for more than one region, area, or site. Risk assessment This assessment will be made to analyze the technical, economic, and social challenges for geological CO2 storage development and to identify mitigation options for these challenges. The results of the risk assessment will provide essential information for making proper technical and economic decisions and for establishing public confidence. The risk assessment provided for in a project management plan for geological CO2 storage is not the same as that included in regulatory analysis. The potential project risk for this project could arise from inadequate storage space or injectivity of the selected Majiagou, Liujiagou, Yanchang, or

Yanan storage reservoir; insufficient sealing capacity of the selected containment sections (Paleozoic and

Mesozoic shale sections) to retain the injected CO2 for a long time; equipment supply difficulties (the high-power CO2 compressor and special CO2 injection

                                                                                                      

  

equipment cannot be provided from locations within the Ordos Basin), leading to delays in establishing the CO2 injection phase;

less-than-planned development of the CO2 source or pipeline; mechanical failure of equipment; significant public opposition; or changes in legal and regulatory regimes, as they become better defined than they are at

present. 4.4 Site Selection for CO2 Storage Projects Site selection is the critical step in the CO2 storage site evaluation process, with data availability being the major constraint on this evaluation. 4.4.1 Preliminary Site Selection for Further Site Characterization and Selection In general, available knowledge and data on potential geological formations are much less than the minimum required for site selection. That said, site selection can take a multi-criteria approach. These criteria can be categorized into two types: disqualifying criteria and site qualification criteria. The use of disqualifying criteria allows the elimination of potential CO2 storage sites from consideration, whereas site qualification criteria offer a way to compare potential sites and then identify the most appropriate one in a given context. The disqualifying criteria are as follows: source–sink distance (distance between the emission source and the candidate storage

site) greater than 250 km, the upper-limit distance chosen on the basis of previous studies (Dahowski et al. 2009);

storage capacity below 100 Mt, the minimum capacity set for a candidate CCS project, (twice the intended storage requirement), taking into account the uncertainty of geological properties and capacity evaluation at large scale;

storage reservoir depth of less than 800 meters (m), the minimum depth for supercritical CO2 geologic storage; and

other evaluation criteria, based on previous studies in the PRC, such as storage cost greater than $10/t, permeability coefficient less than 1 millidarcy (mD), porosity less than 5%, and distance of less than 20 km between the injection well and an active fault (Wei et al. 2013).

After various options such as depleted oil and gas fields and un-minable coal beds are eliminated from consideration, the remaining storage options, namely, oil fields suitable for CO2-EOR and deep saline aquifers, can be evaluated against the site qualification criteria. 4.4.2 Site Selection for CO2-EOR For CO2-EOR projects, characteristics such as reservoir depth, specific gravity of oil, reservoir pressure and temperature, pay-zone thickness, oil viscosity, well spacing, minimum miscibility pressure, initial water saturation, and residual oil saturation are important. A number of screening criteria have been developed for selecting candidates for CO2-EOR (Al Adasani and Bai 2011; Bachu 2002; IEAGHG 2005; Núñez-López et al. 2008; NETL 2013; Shaw and Bachu 2002; Shen 2010). After review, recommended criteria for screening high-grade reservoirs for further detailed technical and economic assessments (Table 7) were chosen.

                                                                                                      

  

Table 7 Criteria for Screening Reservoirs for CO2-EOR Suitability

Reservoir Characteristic

NETL (2013)

Taber et al. (1997)

(Shen (2010)

Shaw and Bachu (2002)

Dahowski and (Bachu 2007)

Recommended Criteria

Depth, m 600 to

~ 3,000 > 700 > 762 > 762

Temperature, °C < 121 31–121 < 121 < 121 Pressure, MPa > 8.4 > 7.6 > 7.58 Pressure, MMP > 0.95 > 0.95 Permeability, 10-3 μm2

> 1

Oil gravity, ° API > 27 > 26 > 22 27–48 27–48 > 27

Viscosity, cp < 12 < 15 < 10 <10 < 20 Residual oil saturation, Sor

> 0.30 > 0.30 > 0.20 > 0.25 0.2

On the basis of oil-field data and site selection criteria, several potential CO2-EOR oil-field sites were selected for further evaluation in the Ordos Basin. These are the Lizhuangzi, Dashuikeng, Baiyanjing, Hongjingzi, Donghongzhuang, Maling, Yuancheng, Huachi, Chenghao, and Wuqi fields. These have reached the end of the second recovery phase (water flooding), and several are ready to enter, or have already entered, the third recovery phase. This condition presents an opportunity for CO2-EOR and geological storage. The main challenges for applying CO2-EOR technologies are the extremely low porosity, permeability, and higher reservoir heterogeneity of most reservoirs in the Ordos Basin. Given earlier assessments, this suggests that such CO2-EOR demonstration projects in the Ordos Basin would not be cost effective even if technically successful since the supercritical CO2 would need to be transported over 300 km from the proposed site of the Shenhua Guohua Shenmu oxy-fuel combustion demonstration plant. 4.4.3 Site Selection for CO2 Saline Aquifer Storage The evaluation framework for the identification of potential geological CO2 storage sites follows the methodology developed by Wei et al. (2013), which combines qualitative and quantitative analyses. A multi-objective method involves both types of analyses (Ramírez et al. 2009, 2010). Thus, evaluation indexes are obtained through a multi-objective method based on GIS software, which focuses on four primary objectives (Wei et al. 2013), namely: Optimize storage in terms of capacity and injectivity. Minimize risks related to maximum injection pressure, caprock integrity, active faults,

potential of oil and gas reservoirs, sedimentary history, tectonic activity, and seismic intensity.

Deal with environmental constraints, including the distribution of cities with corresponding high population, the distribution of natural resources, and conflict between land and underground space.

Manage economic considerations, by analyzing costs (e.g., reuse of existing infrastructure versus the building of new installations) and social constraints (e.g., public acceptance). Overall costs are directly linked to injection equipment, monitoring facilities, and pipelines, which may affect the selection of CO2 storage sites.

The GIS database includes data on CO2 emission sources, geological structures, tectonic units, storage sites, transportation, geologic characteristics, cities, and population intensity, as well as other basic data. These data were obtained from several databases including those of

                                                                                                      

  

the Ministry of Land and Resources and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, atlases, reports, books, and papers. These data sets and the GIS tool enable suitability evaluation in the preselection phase.

CO2 saline aquifer storage sites must have good reservoirs, caprock, and hydrogeological conditions, generally with a depth in the range of 800–3,500 m. Sedimentary facies, deposit material including clastic and carbonate rocks, and reservoir properties (porosity, permeability) have significant effects on CO2 storage. These factors are the key criteria for reservoir selection, as shown in Table 8. Permeability coefficient and porosity are obtained from indoor tests, which should comply with the codes for such tests on the physical properties of rocks.

Table 8 Criteria for Selecting Saline Aquifer Formations for CO2 storage

Key Index Criterion Remarks Sedimentary type Terrestrial clastic rock For storage capacity and injectivity Depth range 800–3,500 m For storage capacity and economic aspect Permeability > 1 mD (over 10 mD is better) Key index of injectivity Accumulated thickness > 20 m Key index of injectivity Porosity > 5% For clastic deposits Water quality > 3 g/L Minimum salinity criterion

Source: Activities by the project team

The Ordos Basin is a typical cratonic basin. Tectonically it can be subdivided into six structural units: the Yimeng Uplift, the Weibei Uplift, the Jinxi Fault-Fold Belt, the Shaanbei Slope, the Tianhuan Depression, and the Western Edge Thrust Belt. The Ordos Basin developed into a large stable basin during the Paleozoic era, with tectonic movements dominated by both regional uplift and subsidence. Except for uplifts and depressions that developed at the margins, the basin is characterized by a huge monoclinal structure (the Shaanbei Slope) with a 1º–2º dip to the west (Source: 7). The average present-day regional geothermal gradient of the Ordos Basin is 30ºC/km and the average surface temperature is 13.6ºC. From oil and gas exploration experience, the Luijiagou, Yanchang, and Yanan formations contain good reservoir-seal pairs that are potentially suitable for the geological CO2 storage in the Ordos Basin. Site suitability evaluation was performed using the GIS-based tool with available iso-values and spatial layer data. The results for aquifer site suitability evaluation are mapped in Error! Reference source not found.8, with the recommended priority sites shown in the blue circle. These results need further study in the site selection and numerical simulation stage. Preliminary investigations show that the saline aquifers (the Liujiagou and Majiagou formations) near the intended location of the proposed Shenhua Guohua Shenmu oxy-fuel combustion demonstration plant have adequate CO2 storage capacity to accept the 1 Mt/year of CO2 to be captured by the proposed facility. For the Liujiagou Formation (100 m), nine wells are needed to inject 1 Mt/year of CO2. For the Majiagou Formation (50 m), an injection of 0.5 Mt/year is feasible. If the Liujiagou and Majiagou are commingled for injecting 1 Mt of CO2 per year, fewer injection wells will be needed, or the injection could continue for more years. The most critical problem with commercial-scale geological CO2 storage is management of reservoir pressure and displaced fluids. About the same volume of formation water is required to be produced during the CO2 injection period (injection simulation setup for 20 years). The reservoir pressure could be reduced to the original reservoir pressure within 20 years after the

                                                                                                      

  

injection ceases if the displaced fluids are produced continuously. The greatest uncertainty in numerically simulating CO2 storage processes is characterizing geologic heterogeneity in three dimensions (3-D). A seismic survey and a stratigraphic test well are essential for site characterization of a specific geologic CO2 storage site.

Figure 7 Geological Map and Cross Section of the Ordos Basin

Source: Hanson et al. (2007).

                                                                                                      

  

Figure 8 Priority Aquifer Sites

Source: Activities by the project team 4.5 Economic Evaluation Methodology of CCS Project A limited number of studies have been conducted on the economic model of CO2 geological storage, which is based on the IEA model, the Battelle-Pacific Northwest National Laboratory model, and the Carnegie Mellon University model. Extensive economic analyses have also been performed on certain technical factors of CCUS, which is primarily based on the model developed by McCoy (2008) with the cost coefficients adjusted to the PRC context. 4.5.1 Injection Strategy of Saline Aquifer Storage Injection strategy plays a significant role in assessing the suitability of a given site for commercial-scale CCS. Large-scale CO2 injection can cause high pressure buildup, which limits the effective storage capacity and can increase the long-term risk of CCS projects, especially for aquifers with closed boundaries. Therefore, as a fundamental basis for the evaluation framework, a general injection strategy assumption was established, encompassing a CO2 injection array together with pressure control (water extraction) wells. This strategy increases the capacity underground and optimizes the use of underground pore space; lowers the risk of deformation of the geologic formation and mechanical risk under high

Priority sites 

                                                                                                      

  

pressure conditions; reduces the risk of unanticipated CO2 migration and its consequences; minimizes leakage through imperfect caprock, fracture network, and faults under high

injection pressure; and potentially reduces the number of necessary injection wells (and costs) by maximizing

overall injectivity (Wei et al. 2013). 4.5.2 Economic Evaluation of Saline Aquifer Storage The CO2 storage scale of this CCUS project is 1 Mt/year, and the injectivity of a single vertical well is 100,000 tonnes per year. The well site includes 9 injection wells, 4 production wells, and 2 monitoring or pressure control wells. CO2 storage strategy comprises combined CO2 storage in saline aquifer with CO2-EOR, with a 90%:10% split. The stored CO2 is assumed to be in supercritical phase. The extracted brine would be desalted for industrial use. Combining the brine treatment cost with the cost of CO2 storage and transport, the final CO2 storage cost with carbon benefit usage (e.g. carbon tax, displaced brine desalinization) is shown in Table 9.

Table 9 Cost of Guohua CCUS Project

Storage Type

Pipeline Transportation

(CNY/t)

Aquifer Storage (CNY/t)

CO2 Transport and

Aquifer Storage (CNY/t)

EOR sales price

(CNY/t)

Total Unit Cost of Brine

Treatment (CNY/t)

Carbon Tax (CNY/t)

CO2 Mitigation Cost with

Carbon Tax (CNY/t)

CO2 saline aquifer storage (100%)

17.97 49.94 67.90 0 0.5 (100.00) (33.57)

CO2 saline aquifer storage

(90%) and CO2 sale for EOR (10%)

17.97 51.92 69.89 (130) 0.5 (100.00) (49.95)

The CO2 saline aquifer storage cost primarily divides into capital cost and operation and management (O&M) costs. It is assumed that the project will be carried out as an integrated project by one company, with CO2 being sold to an oil company at a price of $20 to ~ $30/tonne at an exchange rate of $1:CNY6.5. 4.6 Need for Further Work The WP3 activities were by necessity a first attempt to put together a pre-feasibility-level characterization of the CO2 storage opportunities arising in the region of the Ordos Basin relatively close to the site of the proposed CCUS demonstration project. This necessitated the use of a formulaic approach, adapted to the PRC context, as far as was possible, both in the selection of a potential location for very large-scale CO2 storage and in the identification of possible pilot-scale CO2 utilization opportunities associated with EOR and desalination of brine. Inevitably, this approach resulted in some uncertainty. Consequently, the expectation is that when the project moves forward to the feasibility stage, there will be a far more detailed assessment of the economic aspects of the characterization study, as well as practical geologic assessments of storage capacity.

                                                                                                      

  

5 WP4: Assessment of Institutional Capacity Development Opportunities for Dongfang Boilers and Other Stakeholders

The assessment had two specific objectives: to further develop the capacity of DBC to analyze, design, plan, and implement CCS with

oxy-fuel combustion CO2 capture technology; and

to examine options and propose a robust approach to enhancing public outreach on CCS in general and to developing a 200 MWe demonstration project in particular.

5.1 Dongfang Boilers DBC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Dongfang Electric, is in the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling power plant boilers and environmental protection equipment, for which it is ranked as a first-class supplier in the PRC. The equipment includes 350–1,300 MWe supercritical (SC) and ultra-supercritical (USC) once-through boilers, as well as high-pressure and low-pressure heaters, deaerators, and advanced-level de-SOx (flue gas desulfurization) and de-NOx (selective catalytic reduction) equipment suitable for SC and USC power plants. Its production facilities are supported by first-class R&D and management teams. There is also extensive cooperation with equipment suppliers in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, primarily for the manufacture of large boilers and large, advanced steam turbines, via its sister company, the Dongfang Turbines Group (Dongfang Boiler Group Co. Ltd. 2014). At the end of 2012, DBC had a 30% share of the national coal-fired utility boiler market, which comprised over 237 GWe. In addition, it has exported considerable quantities of equipment to India, Turkey, and Viet Nam. The company has registered capital of CNY1.6 billion and consolidated total assets of CNY1.3 billion (Gong Xi 2014). Since 2006, Dongfang Boiler industrial sales revenue has exceeded CNY10 billion for each of 7 consecutive years, with operating margins of around 8.2%. DBC is also well placed to expand its operations into new ventures, as reflected in its interest in the development of oxy-fuel for CCS applications. This technology represents an extension of the company’s core skills in that it is an evolution of boiler-based combustion. Its ongoing involvement with HUST is indicative of its forward-thinking approach. 5.2 Assessment of the Institutional Capacity of Dongfang Boilers and Its

Partners to Implement the Oxy-fuel-Based CO2 Capture Demonstration Project

This oxy-fuel demonstration was initiated by Shenhua Guohua Power, which launched a project to research and develop CO2 capture technology for large coal-fired plants, based on oxy-fuel combustion. As such, Shenhua Guohua Power has overall management responsibility for the 200 MWe oxy-fuel combustion technology demonstration project. The other key partners are HUST, which has undertaken the fundamental and industrial pilot-scale research, and DBC, which is responsible for developing the boiler and key equipment as well as the integrated design scheme.

                                                                                                      

  

5.2.1 The Demonstration Project Consortium Shenhua Group already has industrial pilot-scale expertise and experience in precombustion CO2 capture and subsequent storage (≤ 100,000 tonnes of CO2 per year) at its coal-to-liquids demonstration unit near Ordos. However, the proposed oxy-combustion demonstration project to be undertaken by Shenhua Guohua Power would represent an order-of-magnitude scale-up in terms of the annual quantities of CO2 to be captured and stored, and would use a different CO2 transport regime as well as a different CO2 capture technique. DBC is building up a significant level of experience in oxy-fuel component design and performance assessment, especially through its working relationship with HUST. What has yet to be determined, however, is DBC’s expertise in component scale-up for this oxy-fuel technology and, very importantly, the need to optimize systems integration. While DBC has a strong track record in the development and scale-up of boiler components, which offers some confidence, the novelty of the technology does present some particular challenges. DBC and Shenhua Guohua Power, both financially sound companies with considerable commercial expertise and strong credit ratings, can provide a sound business plan for the implementation of the proposed demonstration plant. But establishing and managing a large-scale development project for a technology yet to be established at this scale will entail a steep learning curve for all concerned. There are areas of the proposed project where the consortium could benefit from external interactions. Thus, from an objective external perspective, CO2 transport and storage is best undertaken by companies with that expertise, namely, the oil and gas companies. Indeed, for injection into geological formations, neither DBC nor Shenhua Guohua Power has or is likely to receive a license for such an activity, which is very much the responsibility of the oil and gas companies. It is recognized that to date in the PRC it has proved difficult for both sides to reach commercial accommodation on this issue at the industrial pilot scale, where potential EOR revenue is involved. Therefore, this is best viewed as a management challenge, although national government intervention may well be needed to bring both sides together. Overall, the establishment of an inclusive framework for the implementation of a multifaceted demonstration project is very complex and challenging. This includes setting a robust financial basis for the project, which will be difficult to achieve because of the major up-front investment. At the technical level, it will also be difficult to address the challenges of retrofitting novel equipment within the power plant, including CO2 transport and storage, designing and executing a comprehensive test program, announcing the results to an interested global audience, as well as satisfying all the requirements placed on the project by the various investors and other stakeholders. While much of this will be the responsibility of Shenhua Guohua Power, DBC will also have to be heavily involved in these matters. DBC has much experience in overseas sales of proven technology, but the planning and implementation of such a complex project is new to the company, especially from an international perspective. Consequently, DBC could gain valuable experience from seeing how other such demonstration projects are being established in other countries. 5.2.2 Other Stakeholders To put this demonstration project in context, it is necessary to consider the national perspective, which especially influences the institutional capacity needed to implement a

                                                                                                      

  

CCS road map, as this will have a direct impact on the possible CCS-ready and future CCS retrofit issues.

Figure 9 PRC Government Institutions Involved in Energy Policy Making and Administration

Source: IEA (2012).

Figure 9 indicates the very large number of government departments and organizations that are involved in energy policy and administration. While this can be seen as a measure of the importance of energy to the national economic development, it also indicates problems in establishing a coherent way forward for CCS development and deployment. 5.3 Recommendations for Improvements in Institutional Capacity As the implementing agency, DBC is actively participating in this project. It already understands the key technical issues and has a reasonable grasp of the financial requirements for such large-scale technology development. In addition, DBC has attended the various team meetings at which its staff made valuable comments while gaining a greater appreciation of the overall issues associated with the establishment of new technologies, in this case oxy-fuel combustion. At a generic level, therefore, the participation of Dongfang Boilers in this ADB project has in itself resulted in improved institutional capacity. Taking that one stage further, the very positive approach of the various expert members of the project team has led to positive communication between those members, all of whom have brought different skills and expertise to the project. The collective capacity within the team has thus been enhanced, which will be of great supporting value to the PRC when it takes forward oxy-fuel combustion demonstration. 5.3.1 The Project Consortium It will be of benefit to Dongfang Boilers and Shenhua Guohua Power if they can engage with other experts from outside the PRC, in particular to gain an appreciation of how large demonstration projects have been established elsewhere. The most promising options would

                                                                                                      

  

be to meet with the project developers taking forward the US and UK oxy-fuel demonstration projects, which were described in WP1. In the case of the US, not only could Dongfang Boilers and Shenhua Guohua Power learn about an oxy-fuel demonstration project in the US that is of comparable size and scope to their own, it would also benefit these companies and government officials to gain an appreciation of how such large projects, which are public–private partnerships, can be financed and taken forward. In the case of the UK, again the partners from the PRC would be briefed on the challenges of establishing a very large demonstration project. However, in this instance, there would also be scope for PRC government officials to gain an appreciation of a very interesting approach to ensuring that demonstration projects can be established within the utility market on a sound financial basis and to hear about the reform of the UK electricity market so that CCS can compete commercially with other low-carbon energy sources through the introduction of a contract for difference (CFD). 5.3.2 Other Stakeholders Knowledge sharing might best be achieved through conferences and workshops. At a high level, a conference held to present and discuss the key findings from this capacity-building project would be a good way of disseminating the findings, which could include useful input from the component A project with regard to the national strategic implications for CCS demonstration and deployment. The stakeholders would include equipment developers, suppliers, and users—potential CCS implementers in the future. It would also be appropriate to include banks, other possible private investors, and entrepreneurs from both the PRC and overseas that are interested in developing CCS projects in the PRC or other Asian countries. Other possible attendees should comprise design institutes and construction contractors interested in building CCS plants; government officials from the PRC and foreign countries involved in setting policy and institutional changes to promote the CCS; various agencies setting policies and regulations to give government support for the demonstration and implementation of CCS in the PRC; and universities engaged in CCS research and development. 5.3.3 Outreach Activities Besides the dissemination of the project final reports, there will also be scope for members of the project team, including DBC, to present the findings at prestigious international CCS conferences, where papers covering the key work for the project would be well received. To further publicize the outcomes of this project there should also be opportunities to prepare brochures, for government officials and other national stakeholders, with the following coverage: a simplified review of the project aims, objectives, and outcomes; an overview of the benefits to CCS from oxy-fuel combustion; and consideration of the issues associated with CO2 storage. 6 Overall Conclusions and Recommendations This technical assistance project has positively promoted the implementation of a full-chain 200 MWe oxy-fuel demonstration project, while also taking forward technology-innovative R&D to develop lower-cost, lower-energy components to improve technology competitiveness. The project consortium of the Shenhua Group (via Shenhua Guohua Power), DBC, HUST, and the Southwest Electric Design Institute has established an

                                                                                                      

  

integrated approach to achieving these goals, offering the prospect of capturing about 1 Mt of CO2/year for subsequent storage and EOR application. According to Shenhua’s schedule, the FEED study could be prepared from 2015 onward. Alongside this demonstration project, HUST is also working on the 35 MWth oxy-fuel pilot project. Construction of the plant will be finished in 2014 and, if everything goes well, commissioning should begin by the start of 2015. This 35 MWth project is the base and reference for the much bigger 200 MWe oxy-combustion project. A key requirement is to address the remaining potential technical issues, and thus provide greater confidence for the successful completion of the 200 MWe FEED study. This ongoing oxy-combustion development and the intended subsequent demonstration project could therefore offer the PRC an important means of establishing itself as a technology leader, thereby building successfully on its earlier industrial pilot activities. At the same time, it is important to set a clear, overall development schedule, including the work to be done on the 35 MWth unit and how it will be used in the subsequent FEED study. If this overall program can be successfully established, it will provide the PRC with a further near-term CCUS prospect, including establishing IPR opportunities. It must also be stressed that for large-scale demonstration, the need for positive policies and regulations to support commercial prototype demonstrations, plus a viable financial approach to that demonstration, is absolutely critical. At the same time, public acceptance concerns relating to CO2 transport, storage, and use, which would be common to all CCS technologies, must be addressed as part of any project preparatory phase. Finally, it is important to look beyond a single demonstration project and consider how the PRC might move toward an extensive deployment of CCS technologies. These issues are covered in detail in the final report on component A of TA 8133-PRC. 7 References Al Adasani, A., and B. Bai. 2011. Analysis of EOR Projects and Updated Screening Criteria.Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 79 (1–2): 10–24. Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V. Allam, R. J. 2009. Improved Oxygen Production Technologies. Energy Procedia 1(1): 461–470. Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V. Almendra, F., L. West, Z. Li, and S. Forbes. 2011. CCS Demonstration in Developing Countries: Priorities for a Financing Mechanism for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. WRI Working Paper. World Resources Institute, Washington DC. www.wri.org/publication/ccs-demonstration-in-developing-countries Alstom Power. 2014. CCS Solutions: Technologies, Partnerships & References. Company brochure. Baden, Switzerland. January. Bachu, S. 2002. Sequestration of CO2 in Geological Media in Response to Climate Change: Road Map for Site Selection Using the Transform of the Geological Space into the CO2 Phase Space. Energy Conversion and Management 43: 87–102. Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V. Bellona. 2013. DOE Approves Phase 2 of CCS FutureGen 2.0 Project. http://bellona.org/ccs/ccs-news-events/news/article/doe-approves-phase-ii-of-ccs-futuregen-20-project.html (last accessed 11 February 2013).

                                                                                                      

  

Borgert, K. J., and E. S. Rubin. 2013. Oxyfuel Combustion: Technical and Economic Considerations for the Development of Carbon Capture from Pulverized Coal Power Plants. Energy Procedia 37: 1291–1300. Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V. ClimateWise. 2012. Managing Liabilities of European Carbon Capture and Storage. http://www.climatewise.org.uk/storage/_website-2012/collaborations/ccs/ClimateWise%20CCS%20Report%20Nov%202012%20-%20Full%20Report.pdf (last accessed 2 September 2013). Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC). 2008. Storage Capacity Estimation, Site Selection and Characterisation for CO2 Storage Projects. CO2CRC Report No. RPT08-1001. Edited by J. G. Kaldi and C. M. Gibson-Poole. Canberra, Australia. 2011. A Review of Existing Best Practice Manuals for Carbon Dioxide Storage and Regulation. Desktop study prepared for the Global CCS Institute. Canberra, Australia. Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC). 2013. Reviewing Best Practices and Standards for Geologic Storage and Monitoring of CO2: Initial Compilation of Standards, Best Practices and Guidelines for CO2 Storage and Monitoring. Prepared for the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum Technical Group. Canberra, Australia. Dahowski, R., X. Li, C. Davidson, N. Wei, and J. Dooley. 2009. Regional Opportunities for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in China: A Comprehensive CO2 Storage Cost Curve and Analysis of the Potential for Large Scale Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in the People’s Republic of China. Prepared for the US Department of Energy. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, WA. Dongfang Boiler Group Co. Ltd. 2014. Personal communication. Higginbotham, P., V. White, K. Fogash, and G. Guvelioglu. 2011. Oxygen Supply for Oxyfuel CO2 Capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5: S194–S203. Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V. HM Treasury, UK. 2004. The Orange Book: Management of Risk–Principles and Concepts. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220647/ orange_book.pdf International Energy Agency (IEA). 2009. Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage. OECD/IEA, Paris. www.iea.org/roadmaps/ccs_roadmap.asp (last accessed 11 August 2013). International Energy Agency (IEA). 2010a. Energy Technology Perspectives 2010: Scenarios & Strategies to 2050. OECD/IEA, Paris. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/etp2010.pdf International Energy Agency (IEA). 2010b. Legal and Regulatory Review. First edition. OECD/IEA, Paris. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/191010IEA_CCS_Legal _and_Regulatory_Review_Edition1.pdf International Energy Agency (IEA). 2013. Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage. OECD/IEA, Paris. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,39359,en.html International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG). 2005. Building the Cost Curves for CO2 Storage: European Sector. IEAGHG Report 2005/02. http://ieaghg.org/v2.3.2_product/technique_descriptions/bubble_stream_detection.html Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2005. Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by IPCC Working Group III. Edited by B. Metz, O. Davidson, H. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. Meyer. Cambridge University Press, New York. http://www.zeroco2.no/projects/countries/usa

                                                                                                      

  

Jordal, K., M. Anheden, J. Yan, and L. Strömberg. 2005. Oxyfuel Combustion for Coal-Fired Generation with CO2 Capture: Opportunities and Challenges. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies. Vancouver, Canada. 5–9 September 2004. Conference proceedings (edited by M. Wilson, J. Gale, E. S. Rubin, D. W. Keith, C. F. Gilboy, T. Morris, and K. Thambimuthu) published by Elsevier, B. V., Amsterdam. Kakaras, E., A. Doukelis, D. Giannakopoulos, and A. Koumanakos. 2007. Economic Implications of Oxyfuel Application in a Lignite-Fired Power Plant. Fuel 86 (14): 2151–2158. Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V. Markusson, N., S. Shackley, and B. Evar, eds. 2012. The Social Dynamics of Carbon Capture and Storage: Understanding CCS Representations, Governance and Innovation. Routledge, London and New York. McCollum, D. L., and J. M. Ogden. 2006. Techno-Economic Models for Carbon Dioxide Compression, Transport, and Storage and Correlations for Estimating Carbon Dioxide Density and Viscosity. Report UCD-ITS-RR-06-14. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, California. McCoy, S. T. 2008. The Economics of Carbon Dioxide Transport by Pipeline and Storage in Saline Aquifers and Oil Reservoirs. Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University. ProQuest, Michigan. Meadowcroft, J., and O. Langhelle, eds. 2009. Caching the Carbon: The Politics and Policy of Carbon Capture and Storage. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. Mott MacDonald. 2012. Potential Cost Reductions in CCS in the Power Sector. Discussion paper prepared for the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. May. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), USA. 2010. Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery: Untapped Domestic Energy Supply and Long Term Carbon Storage Solution. Pittsburgh, PA. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), USA. 2012. Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies: CO2 Impurity Design Parameters. DOE/NETL-341/011212. http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/QGESSSec3.pdf National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), USA. 2013. Site Screening, Site Selection, and Initial Characterization for Storage of CO2 in Deep Geologic Formations. http://www.alrc.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/BPM-SiteScreening.pdf Núñez-López, V., M. Holtz, D. Wood, W. Ambrose, and S. Hovorka. 2008. Quick-Look Assessments to Identify Optimal CO2 EOR Storage Sites. Environmental Geology 54: 1695–1706. Springer. Perrin, N., R. Dubettier, F. Lockwood, P. Court, J.-P. Tranier, C. Bourhy-Weber, and M. Devaux. 2012. Oxycombustion for Carbon Capture on Coal Power Plants and Industrial Processes: Advantages, Innovative Solutions and Key Projects. Paper presented at the International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies 2012. Kyoto, Japan. 18–22 November. Conference proceedings (edited by T. Dixon and K. Yamaji) published in Energy Procedia 37, by Elsevier B. V., Amsterdam. Preusche, R., C. Schulz, H. Ecke, R. Faber, O. Jidinger, R. Giering, U. Burchhardt, and U. Gampe. 2011. A Data-Based Method for Monitoring Air In-Leakages into the Oxyfuel Process. Energy Procedia 4: 876–883. Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V. Ramírez, A., S. Hagedoorn, L. Kramers, T. Wildenborg, and C. Hendriks. 2009. Screening CO2 Storage Options in the Netherlands. Energy Procedia 1 (1): 2801–2808. Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V. Ramírez, A., S. Hagedoorn, L. Kramers, T. Wildenborg, and C. Hendriks. 2010. Screening CO2 Storage Options in the Netherlands. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (2): 367–380. Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V.

                                                                                                      

  

Rezvani, S., Y. Huang, D. McIlveen-Wright, N. Hewitt, and Y. Wang. 2007. Comparative Assessment of Sub-critical versus Advanced Super-critical Oxyfuel Fired PF Boilers with CO2 Sequestration Facilities. Fuel 86 (14): 2134–2143. Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V. Romeo, L. M., Y. Lara, and A. Gonzalez. 2011. Reducing Energy Penalties in Carbon Capture with Organic Rankine Cycles. Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (14): 2928–2935. Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V. Rubin, E. S., H. Mantripragada, A. Marks, P. Versteeg, and J. Kitchin. 2012. The Outlook for Improved Carbon Capture Technology. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 38: 630–671. Rubin, E. S., S. Yeh, M. Antes, M. Berkenpas, and J. Davison. 2007. Use of Experience Curves to Estimate the Future Cost of Power Plants with CO2 Capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 1, 188–197. Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V. Shaw, J., and S. Bachu. 2002 Screening, Evaluation, and Ranking of Oil Reservoirs Suitable for CO2-Flood EOR and Carbon Dioxide Sequestration. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 41 (9): 51–61. Shen, P. 2010. Enhanced Oil Recovery, Storage and Utilization of Greenhouse Gas. National Basic Research of China, 973 Program. Simbeck, D. R. 2001. CO2 Mitigation Economics for Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants. Paper presented at the First National Conference on Carbon Sequestration. 15–17 May. Washington, DC. Simmonds, M., and G. Walker. 2005a. Zero or Low Recycle In-Duct Burner Oxyfuel Boiler Feasibility Study. In Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations, edited by David C. Thomas, Volume 1, Chapter 28, 489–497. Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V. Simmonds, M., and G. Walker. 2005b. Zero Recycle Oxyfuel Boiler Plant with CO2 Capture. In Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations, edited by David C. Thomas, Volume 1, Chapter 27, 477–487. Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V. State Grid Corporation of China. 2010. China’s Emissions Intensity Reduction Programme. Wall, T. 2009. Scoping Study on Oxy-fuel Combustion for the Australian National Low Emission Coal R&D (ANLEC R&D) Program. A report commissioned by ANLEC R&D. Wall, T., and R. Stanger. 2009. Guidelines and Regulations for Oxy-fuel Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport and Storage. A resource document pepared for the Oxy-fuel Working Group (OFWG). Wei, N., X. Li, Y. Wang, R. T. Dahowski, C. L. Davidson, and G. S. Bromhal. 2013. A Preliminary Sub-basin Scale Evaluation Framework of Site Suitability for Onshore Aquifer-Based CO2 Storage in China. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 12: 231–246. Xiong, J., H. Zhao, and C. Zheng. 2011. Simulation Optimization and Exergy Analysis of a Cryogenic Air Separation. Cryogenics 3 (181): 39–43.