February 2024 Decarbonisati n Technolo gy Powering the Transition to Sustainable Fuels & Energy
SYNTHETIC FUELS, BIOFUELS AMMONIA, METHANE MONITORING & CONTROL
INDUSTRIAL CLUSTERS HYDROGEN, PURE WATER
2
Honeywell UOP is ready for the scaled decarbonization of air travel. Through Ecofining ™ , Ethanol to Jet and our latest SAF technology- UOP eFining ™ -we're converting an even greater range of feedstocks to meet the growing demands of sustainable aviation fuel. Honeywell UOP's history of innovation plus a diversified technology portfolio enables us to turn your sustainable ambitions into a bankable reality. That's how Honeywell UOP is putting a sustainable future within reach.
Learn more at uop.honeywell.com
Honeywell UOP
© 2024 Honeywell Inc. All rights reserved
Contents
February 2024
7
Sustainable solutions with industrial clusters: Part 1 Joris Mertens KBC (A Yokogawa Company)
15
Minimise emissions with control and monitoring solutions Anne-Sophie Kedad Emerson
21
Ultrapure water for electrolysis Stephen B Harrison sbh4 Consulting
29
The challenges of transitioning to green hydrogen Himmat Singh Formerly CSIR-Indian Institute of Petroleum
37
Strategies to maximise profitability in HVO complexes Jay Jeong, Eva Andersson and Bent Sarup Alfa Laval
45
Decarbonising the aviation industry Yvon Bernard, Carine Leclercq and Nicolas Simon Axens
51
Producing synthetic fuels from renewable feeds Scott Sayles, Robert Ohmes, Pattabhi Raman Narayanan and Jessica Hofmann Becht
59
A path to net-zero emissions for the oil and gas industry Bill Roberts Rockwell Automation
65
Primary data sharing for supply chain decarbonisation Lavanya Pawar Carboledger
73
Addressing the energy trilemma through advanced gasification Amna Bezanty KEW Technology
79
Unlocking high-pressure ammonia cracking Benjamin Mutz and Robert Baumgarten hte GmbH
©2024 . The entire content of this publication is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without the prior permission of the copyright owner. The opinions and views expressed by the authors in this publication are not necessarily those of the editor or publisher and while every care has been taken in the preparation of all material included the publisher cannot be held responsible for any statements, opinions or views or for any inaccuracies.
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
1
TAKE A LOOK AT THE AGENDA! The 2024 agenda will explore cutting edge decarbonisation strategies and technologies that are driving the energy transition. Book your place now to benefit from cross - market debates and networking with industry experts.
TUESDAY 16TH APRIL 2024
Arrival, registration & breakfast networking
09:00
Panel: Policy benchmarking: The global status of decarbonisation policy, strategy, and industry collaboration Justine Roure , Deputy Vice President of Strategy & Policy, OGCI Joachim von Scheele , Director Global Commercialization , Linde
10:45
09:30
Welcome and opening remarks
Jesse Scott , Visiting Research Fellow , Hertie School & DIW Berlin German Institute for Economic Research
Back by popular demand, Jesse Scott is returning as chair for Decarbonisation Technology 2024. She is a world - class expert on policy making in the field of clean energy transition.
Joachim has a background in steel research and consultancy. He joined the industrial gases industry in 1996. Since then, he has held roles at AGA, BOC, and Linde, including appointments in India and China.
Keynote address Lord Callanan , Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Energy Efficiency and Green Finance), Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
09:45
Coffee break & networking
11:30
Mobilising capital and private investment to drive funding for industrial decarbonisation Wen-Wen Lindroth , Lead Cross-Asset Strategist, Fidelity International
12:00
Lord Callanan was appointed Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Energy Efficiency and Green Finance) at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on 7 February 2023.
Panel: What do industries need to see in the finance, investment, and policy landscape to move faster? Matthew Harwood , Chief Strategy Officer , OGCI Climate Investment Tyler Christie , Managing Director , Decarbonization Partners (a BlackRock & Temasek JV) Ian Riley , CEO , World Cement Association Vicky Roberts-Mills , Head of Energy Transition , AXA XL
12:30
Panel: How (well) are policy and key industry stakeholders working together for a decarbonised future? Daniel Carter , President , Decarbonisation, Wood Pavan Chilukuri , Vice President / Group Head of CCUS & e-Fuels, Holcim Kash Burchett , Global Head of Carbon Removal Technologies, HSBC
10:00
decarbonisationtechnologysummit.com Register your interest at
Networking lunch
13:15
Coffee break & networking
15:30
Case study: Sustainable steel - Ovako’s next frontiers Göran Nystrom , Special Advisor , Ovako Group Panel: Hydrogen - Potential vs progress in policy, technology and investment Abigail Dombey , Energy & Sustainability Engineer, Net Zero Associates Ltd Diogo Almeida , Head of Business Development - Hydrogen, HVO and E-Fuels , Galp Killian Daly , Executive Director, EnergyTag
16:00
Development of processes to utilise captured CO2 to manufacture new materials
14:15
16:30
Panel: Accelerating the standardization of CCS to improve the technology, cost, scheduling, and safety Ingrid Edmund , Head of Financing, Infrastructure Equity Investments , Columbia Threadneedle Investments EMEA APAC Manuel Jacques , CO2 Early Engagement Manager, Technip Energies Dr Conor Hamill , Co-CEO , Nuada
14:45
Day 1 round-up Drinks reception & canapes
17:15
17:30
WEDNESDAY 17TH APRIL 2024
Chairperson’s welcome Jesse Scott , Visiting Research Fellow , Hertie School & DIW Berlin German Institute for Economic Research
Demand for low carbon-materials and implications for the supply chain Dr. William Beer , CEO , Tunley Environmental
12:15
09:15
The application of AI in the development of technologies essential for reaching global net zero targets Maurits van Tol , CEO of Catalyst Technologies , Johnson Matthey Plc
Embracing circularity in the transition away from emissions-intensive energy
12:45
09:30
Networking lunch
13:15
Driving sustainability in petrochemicals: Sulzer Chemtech’s innovations in alternative fuels and circular economy Dr. Uwe Boltersdorf , Division President Chemtech , Sulzer Management Ltd. Panel: The role of waste-to-products in the circular economy Eldar Khamidulin , Global Director, Business Development , LanzaTech Alfredo Carrato , Venture Capital Advisor , Cemex Ventures
14:15
DNV’s pathway to Net Zero and 1.5 degrees Hari Vamadevan , Regional Director, UK & Ireland, Energy Systems , DNV
10:00
10:30
Realising energy transition - Unleashing the potential of open innovation in the field David Bould , Head of Ventures and Open Innovation, UK & Ireland , Ørsted
14:45
Coffee break & networking
11:00
Panel: Catalysing the decarbonisation of the industrial clusters and hubs Chris Manson-Whitton , CEO , Progressive Energy/ HyNet Project
11:30
Closing keynote: Committing to zero-carbon electricity
15:30
Conference wrap-up and closing remarks from the Chair Jesse Scott , Visiting Research Fellow , Hertie School & DIW Berlin German Institute for Economic Research
68% of last year’s delegates identified Dr. Chris as the summit’s top-rated speaker. Chris is an expert in the low-carbon energy sector and will return in April to share his expertise.
16:00
Coffee break & networking
16:15
Brought to you by:
Platinum Partner:
decarbonisationtechnologysummit.com Register your interest at
The world’s energy system is changing. To solve the challenges, Shell Catalysts & Technologies is developing its Decarbonisation Solutions portfolio to provide integrated value chains of technologies to help industries navigate the energy transition. Our experienced teams of consultants and engineers draw on Shell’s owner–operator– licensor expertise to co-create pathways and technology solutions to address your specific decarbonisation ambitions – creating a cleaner way forward together. Learn more at shell.com/decarbonisation. Accelerating decarbonisation solutions together
In its press release following COP28, the UNFCC welcomed the ‘Beginning of the End’ of the fossil fuel era, heralding that COP28 has laid the groundwork for a swift, just, and equitable energy transition, with commitments to deep cuts in emissions and scaled-up finance. Increased investment is critical to triple the current supply of renewable energy required to complete the transition to renewable electric power. While we frequently discuss the need for alternatives to direct electrification, such as low- carbon transport fuels, renewable electricity remains vital to expand the production of low carbon intensity hydrogen, as well as for process heating. The emerging class of e-fuels, by definition, starts with hydrogen. Reducing emissions. Just these two words impart what must be done and define a unified global mission. Since 2015, much investment has focused on developing the solutions required for the transition. While scale-up and implementation are now underway, for many of these solutions it will take the next three decades and longer to complete. During this transition, solutions that reduce emissions in the short term must be deployed, even as we develop more optimal solutions for the longer term. Commitments by the oil and gas industry to reduce methane emissions – through initiatives such as the Global Methane Pledge and the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative’s near-zero methane emissions by 2030 – instil a sense of urgency. Much has been done to improve monitoring and better understand the major sources of methane emissions. Technologies are available to eliminate fugitive emissions from oil and gas operations. Actions to reduce methane from sectors such as municipal waste management are also progressing. Over the next six years, we should see a downturn in methane emissions, leading to a lower concentration of atmospheric methane. While this will signify a turning point, we must not let it distract from the longer-term campaign to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Global CCS Institute reports an increase in carbon capture capacity under development in 2023, which will bring the total capture capacity to 361 Mtpa. It also highlights that the levels of policy support from governments and of equity financing have reached historic highs. This is encouraging news, as CCS is an essential technology in the battle against climate change. However, while the number of projects is escalating, more must be done to achieve the target 1 Gt capture capacity by 2030. In the context of a circular carbon economy, some captured carbon may be recycled or reused. Mandates and incentives to develop e-fuels are coming into effect. These measures, along with others such as energy efficiency and sustainable biofuels, will help to reduce and ultimately supplant the demand for fossil fuels.
Managing Editor Rachel Storry
rachel.storry@emap.com tel +44 (0)7786 136440
Consulting Editor Robin Nelson robin.nelson@ decarbonisationtechnology.com
Editorial Assistant Lisa Harrison lisa.harrison@emap.com
Graphics Peter Harper
Business Development Director Paul Mason info@decarbonisationtechnology.com tel +44 844 5888 771
Managing Director Richard Watts richard.watts@emap.com
EMAP, 10th Floor Southern House Wellesley Grove, Croydon CR0 1XG
Cover Story Co-located with Kellas Midstream’s CATS terminal on Teesside, H2NorthEast will deliver up to 10% of the UK’s 10GW
hydrogen target by 2030. Courtesy: Kellas Midstream
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
5
Optimizing combustion for a greener tomorrow WE’RE COMMITTED TO A BETTER FUTURE There has never been a greater need to decarbonize fired equipment, produce cleaner energy sources, and operate in a more environmentally responsible way. Optimized combustion and enhanced predictive analytics are key to reducing plant emissions and ensuring equipment uptime. Designed for safety systems, our Thermox ® WDG-V combustion analyzer leads the way, monitoring and controlling combustion with unparalleled precision. Setting the industry standard for more than 50 years, AMETEK process analyzers are a solution you can rely on. Let’s decarbonize tomorrow together by ensuring tighter emission control, efficient operations, and enhanced process safety for a greener future.
AMETEKPI.COM/CLEANENERGY
Sustainable solutions with industrial clusters: Part 1 Decarbonising an industrial cluster requires a methodical techno-economic evaluation based on the carbon abatement cost curve
Joris Mertens KBC (A Yokogawa Company)
I ndustrial clusters represent a substantial part of global greenhouse gas emissions. The combined annual CO 2 emissions of the 20 signatory clusters of the World Economic Forum exceed 600 million tonnes (WEF, 2023). Meanwhile, the European Expert Group on Clusters identifies at least 3,000 industrial clusters in the EU alone (European Commission, 2021). Rather than defined in terms of size and industry type, industrial clusters refer to various facilities in reasonable proximity but generally owned by different entities. Clusters are better positioned to successfully decarbonise than isolated individual industrial sites because of the higher potential to integrate resources via collaboration. Accomplishing this potential, however, is complex. It involves digitalisation, process technology, economics and, possibly most
challenging, trust and active collaboration between players across different industries as well as potential competitors. Optimising industrial systems include three dimensions: Scope, Scale and Frequency, as shown in Figure 1 . Scope refers to the utilities, feeds, and products integrated in the system optimisation. Scale pertains to the selection of sites within the industrial cluster. Lastly, Frequency relates to the time dimension of cluster optimisation (real-time, daily, monthly). The industrial system is optimised when the cluster operates as a system of systems (SoS) that accounts for all aspects of Scope, Scale, and Frequency. Due to the complexity, such an integrated SoS for a large industrial zone does not yet exist, posing the question: What is the best approach to building one?
Frequency/time
Real-time
S o S
Daily
Scope
FSE + H + CO
Fuel + steam + electricity (FSE)
FSE, H , CO , products, stability
Monthly
Fuel
Product feed
Electricity
Equipment
Unit
Site
Cluster
Scale
Figure 1 System of systems (SoS) optimisation
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
7
CCU/New process technology
Ranking
Lower revenue energy/ Infrastructural/ Novel decarb technology
Carbon abatement cost (CAC)
RTO/Energy saving/Flare reduction
CCS
CCU
CCS
Identi cation
Trajectory build
Emission reduction
CAC
Risk/capital
Figure 2 Decarbonisation trajectory development
A recommended approach involves two work streams: an offline desktop trajectory development, which uses a model or digital twin of the system, and an implementation stream. Part 1 of this article discusses developing a decarbonisation trajectory, while Parts 2 and 3 will focus on implementing the decarbonisation trajectory and how to sustain the benefits of an optimised industrial cluster. It is important to note that the two work streams should not be fully separated exercises. Decarbonisation trajectory development The trajectory development for decarbonisation is a work stream conducted offline. As shown in Figure 2 , it consists of the following consecutive steps: • Identify the steps that can contribute to decarbonisation. • Compile a ranking order for implementation based on carbon abatement cost while accounting for risk and capital requirements. • Build a trajectory. This exercise applies to decarbonising both individual sites and industrial clusters. The size of industrial clusters and the fact that clusters are systems with distributed ownership further complicates the process. Identifying decarbonisation contributors The plans and decarbonisation targets for the individual sites are the basic inputs for developing the decarbonisation strategy for the
cluster. Additionally, the future infrastructure and system characteristics and constraints need to be understood. This includes the following factors:
• Carbon intensity of grid electricity • New industrial entrants and leavers • CO 2 storage options • Electricity grid constraints
• Infrastructural projects considered or planned relating to, for example, the power grid, district heating, H 2 or CO 2 infrastructure. The technical options can be bundled into the following classes: • Low-to-medium investment cost options include real-time optimisation, flaring reduction, and energy system optimisation that require limited equipment changes, such as exchangers and smaller drivers. Additionally, it involves a small investment in piping infrastructure and limited enhancements to site or cluster power infrastructure. • Inter-site collaboration will be incentivised when adjacent sites integrate utility systems. Although capital costs can vary widely, they are expected to range from medium to very high. However, optimising production processes by exchanging products or optimising product logistics presents additional opportunities to offset costs. • High to very high investment options involve optimising capital energy systems (such as large compressors, gas turbines), revamping process units, fortifying the major grid, and
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
8
creating district heating systems. With a capital cost reaching billions for a large steel plant, switching coke-fed blast furnace steel making to direct reduced iron (DRI) using hydrogen can be the ultimate example of a site/process-related decarbonisation project. • Novel technology or application of existing technologies such as advanced electrification (e-furnaces/boilers), hydrogen or ammonia firing heat pumps. • Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a form of waste disposal. In spite of the high energy consumption and capital cost involved, CCS is a lower-cost emission reduction option for some applications than what is offered by current alternatives. • Carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) can contribute significantly to a decarbonisation strategy. However, it runs into some significant cost constraints: A techno-economic study evaluated nine different carbon utilisation technologies (Mertens, et al., 2022) (Mertens, et al., 2023). The findings highlighted that most of these technologies require large amounts of expensive green hydrogen, which renders them economically unviable unless the products generated are valued substantially higher than their fossil counterparts. One high-value market already exists for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). From 2030 onwards, specific e-SAF mandates will provide more support for carbon utilisation.
Burning fuels produced from CO 2 originating from fossil sources still results in net CO 2 emissions. Therefore, producers of fossil CO 2 should not be exempt from emission taxation or trading scheme obligations, even when the CO 2 generated is used to make products. European legislation will likely mandate that CO 2 used as a raw material to produce new products stems from either biogenic sources or direct air capture rather than from combusted fossil fuels. This approach increases operating costs for carbon utilisation projects and may limit the available CO 2 . Bundling provides a preliminary ranking order of all the emission reduction options. Ranking: Carbon abatement cost, risk, and capital Carbon abatement cost The trajectory development is driven by the carbon abatement cost (CAC) curve that more rigorously ranks the different carbon reduction initiatives according to the costs involved in reducing CO 2 emissions, as shown in Figure 3 . The CAC for decarbonisation initiatives is calculated from cash flow elements, capital expenditures, and capital cost details such as debt and equity costs, IRR/NPV requirements, and loan duration. Abatement cost can be estimated as follows: • Using a financial model that credits CO2 emissions savings, with the abatement cost
CCU/New process technology
Lower revenue energy/Infrastructural/ Novel decarb technology
CCS
CCU
RTO/Energy saving/Flare reduction
CCS
Emission reduction
Figure 3 Carbon abatement cost curve
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
9
60
20
Fuel cost (Base: 30.5 $/MWh)
150
0
CO cost (Base: 100 $/t)
80
60
PSA H recovery (Base: 67%)
40
150
Electr. cost (Base: 106 $/MWh)
0.00
0.50
Carbon intensity electr. (Base: 0.23 t/MWh)
0.10
0.25
Cl fuel (Base: 0.20 t/MWh)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Bene t (min $/y)
Figure 4 Sensitivity analysis
determined by the level of that credit at which a specified financial performance is achieved, such as a positive net present value (NPV) at a set internal rate of return (IRR). • Applying a simpler approach annualises capital costs:
transportation infrastructure, technological readiness level (TRL), and unanticipated cross-project or cross-site. • Economic : Accurately estimating investment costs, feed and hydrogen costs, product value, inflation, taxation, and infrastructure projects such as power grids, H2 /CO 2 headers, and district heating. • Commercial and legislative : Market demand, land availability, and obtaining permits. These factors need to be compiled to assess the risks related to the different emission reduction initiatives. This can be done using methodologies such as sensitivity studies or Monte Carlo Analysis. Figure 4 is a Tornado Diagram that shows how sensitive a project’s cash flow is to certain independent input variables. Depending on the outcome, the priority of implementation may change, or further analysis may be required. These methods are useful but require an assessment or assumption of risk distribution themselves. Therefore, first performing preparatory investigations into the risk factors, such as those listed in the Identifying decarbonisation contributors section, are as important as the risk assessment itself. Capital requirements may render some projects hard to implement. As a result, the project may have to be either discarded or phased back. However, collaboration with neighbouring sites may substantially reduce the financial needs and risk. The best examples in the decarbonisation sphere probably involve implementing CCS hubs. This collaboration materialises due to distributing technical and financial burdens across all stakeholders.
Annualised capital cost = Capital spent *
where i = cost of capital n = duration / project life
The CAC will be the CO 2 credit at which the cash flow equals the annualised capital cost. This simplified approach will slightly underestimate the carbon cost compared to the detailed method that accounts for construction time, possible low initial utilisation rate after project completion, turnarounds, taxation, and other factors. However, the simplified approach fits a high-level screening study with multiple decarbonisation projects where the goal is to establish ranking rather than estimate an accurate abatement cost. The CAC is a powerful tool that presents projects in an order that can be directly translated into a trajectory. However, risk and capital cost must be weighed as well. Risk and capital cost When ranking carbon abatement projects, the following technical, economic, commercial, and legal constraints or uncertainties represent a risk and, therefore, will need to be considered: • Technical : The availability of green electricity and hydrogen, CO2 storage capacity and
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
10
Trajectory build The development of a decarbonisation trajectory to carbon neutrality, for an individual site or a cluster, should be done in steps by building the following material and energy/emission balances and intermediate trajectories: • Base case : The first step consists of establishing the current heat and utility balance. • Business As Usual Trajectory (BAUT) : The next step in the evolution of material and utility balances, assuming the system itself does not change but only adapts to external factors. The BAUT is based on the expected future output for all industries in the site or cluster. For instance, the refining sector faces a challenge as the demand for fossil fuels for road vehicles will drop, particularly in Europe. Polymer production may also be affected due to the need to reduce plastic waste. Unabated, the global annual production of plastics could increase from 400 to 1,600 million tonnes (Scott, et al., 2020). This massive volume is unsustainable if a substantial part of it is not recycled. • Stated policy trajectory (SPT) : Outlines the system’s evolution if existing plans and policies are implemented. The industries within a cluster should have clear intentions and plans. An SPT is best developed based on plans with a certain technical and financial maturity. Furthermore, the stated policies of the different cluster entities must be aligned and consolidated: Are they based on the same assumptions, and can they be combined? Therefore, developing an
SPT trajectory for a cluster of sites may require adjusting the individual SPTs to achieve overall coherence. Additionally, a financial and risk evaluation may need to be performed. • Compliant trajectory (CT) : Taking action to decrease emissions according to a set decarbonisation reduction trajectory. Existing plans and strong commitments may fall short of ambitious net-zero targets. Therefore, the compliant trajectory includes actions in addition to the SPT to close the emissions trajectory gap. Figure 5 directionally shows the options available to close the gap between the stated policy and compliant trajectories. The impact of combined decarbonisation initiatives differs from the sum of individual steps. Therefore, properly assessing the decarbonisation initiatives requires a system- wide consolidation, as well as the right tools and stakeholder interactions. Figure 6 shows how the trajectory is constructed: Pre-qualification and ranking, as previously described. BAUT build. SPT and CT build using the pre-qualified and “ The industries within a cluster should have clear intentions and plans. An SPT is best developed based on plans with a certain technical and financial maturity ”
100%
Business as usual trajectory
Stated policies trajectory
Contributors
Low C apex / inter-site collaboration High Capex optimisation New low - ca r bon technology
2030 target
CCS
CCU
0%
2020
2030
2050
Figure 5 Decarbonisation trajectory development
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
11
ranked decarbonisation steps. The outcome results from three contributors: i. Accumulation : Adding the different decarbonisation steps. ii. Interaction : Accounting for interactions between the individual steps. iii. Time dimension : A trajectory implies the steps will be implemented in a staggered order. A detailed impact assessment is required for at least two periods (2030 and 2050 in Figure 6), with possible interpolation for the intermediate periods. Tools: energy system and process simulation Spreadsheet modelling can be used to estimate the cumulative impact of different decarbonisation actions. However, it may not allow for establishing material and utility balances of the system accurately and even less for assessing the interaction between subsystems. An Integrated Process, Energy, Emissions and Economics Model (IP3EM) consisting of digital twins of the energy and process systems is the best possible tool to achieve this (Mitchell, 2023). Stakeholder interaction Even though technical evaluation is important, it is only accurate to the extent that the inputs and assumptions are realistic. Thus, close and regular interaction among industrial
stakeholders is crucial, as discussed in the next section. Trajectory development: cluster specifics Challenges of cluster decarbonisation are similar to those of individual sites. However, the complexity and divided ownership pose additional challenges that need to be overcome to capture the potential synergies of cluster integration. Complexity In trajectory development, technical issues related to subsystems may arise, but risk management should also be considered and can be addressed as follows: • Partitioning the task : Despite improvements in information software and hardware technology, the trajectory build methodology described in the previous section may be difficult to apply on large industrial clusters when time and resources are limited. Therefore, a sliced or phased approach can be used to develop a proof of concept case as a first step with a focus on: A geographic subcluster only; for example, limit the Scale dimension of Figure 1. Constrain the Scope dimension to what is expected to contribute most to decarbonisation, most likely energy. • Risk mitigation: Preparedness is key to
Stand-alone projects
Industrial zone
2050
Current
2030
Opex / emissions
Capex
BAUT SPT
BAUT SPT
Energy balance Material balance
CT
CT
Low Capex
Low Capex
Stakeholder feedback
Stakeholder feedback
Inter-site collaboration
Inter-site collaboration
Higher Capex
Higher Capex
Novel technologies
Novel technologies
Risk analysis / capital constraints
CO abatement cost + curve
Circularity
Circularity
CCS
CCS
CCU
CCU
Pre-quali cation / ranking
Trajectory construction, validation and optimisation
Figure 6 Decarbonisation trajectory build
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
12
Challenge Complexity Technical
Solution
Facilitators
Partition in -Subclusters
Tools
Adapt : Agility / exibilty
Risk
Mitigate : Understand characteristics and constraints
Orchestration
Build trust
Divided ownership
Figure 7 Cluster decarbonisation trajectory development challenges and facilitators
mitigating risk, as it means understanding the infrastructure and system characteristics and constraints, as explained in the Identifying Decarbonisation Contributors section. • Risk adaptation: Flexibility and agility are achieved by: Using adaptable tools that can swiftly adjust and reconstruct a trajectory when assumptions change. Sustaining stakeholder interaction will help accelerate and get cluster-wide buy-in when changes occur. Divided ownership and the orchestrator The fact that clusters consist of entities owned by different parties, possibly competitors, should not significantly affect the trajectory. However, specifically for clusters, perceived risks, primarily around data sharing as well as capital and operational costs, will hamper trajectory development and likely impede implementation. Therefore, an independent orchestrator is required, even to start the journey, to bring the stakeholders together to create trust, as shown in Figure 7 . The orchestrator can be a business association, but these initiatives are primarily driven by government institutions with local business support. The orchestrator also drives the trajectory development either by performing the task or appointing a third party when resources are unavailable. Part of the orchestrator’s role involves setting the scene and identifying cross-industrial characteristics, constraints, and projects. The orchestrator’s role goes beyond co-ordinating collaboration between the process
industries; it also provides critical input to utility providers and grid operators.
Conclusion Developing a joint decarbonisation
trajectory for a cluster of industrial sites will reduce both the operating and capital cost compared to individual actions. Establishing a decarbonisation trajectory for an industrial cluster requires a methodical approach using “ Challenges of cluster decarbonisation are similar to those of individual sites. However, the complexity and divided ownership pose additional challenges ” a techno-economic evaluation primarily based on the CAC curve. This entails integrating process and energy modelling, as well as including risk factors and capital costs. Finally, an orchestrator must initiate and co-ordinate the journey after setting the scene with preliminary work. Part 2 of the study will continue to examine the questions related to trust that arise when decarbonisation trajectories for industrial clusters are implemented. Part 3 will discuss the benefits obtained from continuous real-time optimisation after the decarbonisation measures have been put into place.
VIEW REFERENCES
Joris Mertens joris.mertens@kbc.global
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
13
Capturing green opportunities
Carbon capture and storage or utilization (CCS/CCU) is a key strategy that businesses can adopt to reduce their CO 2 emissions. By selecting the right technologies, pressing climate change mitigation targets can be met while benefitting from new revenue streams. Sulzer Chemtech offers cost-effective solutions for solvent-based CO 2 absorption, which maximize the amount of CO 2 captured and minimize the energy consumption. To successfully overcome technical and economic challenges of this capture application, we specifically developed the structured packing MellapakCC™. This packing is currently applied in several leading CCS/CCU facilities worldwide, delivering considerable process advantages. By partnering with Sulzer Chemtech – a mass transfer specialist with extensive experience in separation technology for carbon capture – businesses can implement tailored solutions that maximize their return on investment (ROI). With highly effective CCS/CCU facilities, decarbonization
becomes an undertaking that can enhance sustainability and competitiveness at the same time. For more information: sulzer.com/ chemtech
Visit us at ACHEMA in Frankfurt Hall 4 Stand D48
Minimise emissions with control and monitoring solutions Intelligent technologies like solenoid valves, wireless thief-hatch monitors, and advanced redundant control systems can help reduce methane emissions
Anne-Sophie Kedad Emerson
G lobally, oil and gas operations account for 15% of total energy-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (OECD, 2023). This significant percentage of GHG emissions has led to increased emissions regulations by multiple governments and agencies. Reducing these emissions in a cost-effective manner will be essential for both the planet and the long-term viability of the global energy industry. Fugitive emissions, particularly methane, are either unintentional or undesirable methane leaks or discharges from working wells, pressure- containing equipment or facilities. Technologies exist to minimise or even eliminate fugitive emissions, with industry-wide initiatives such as the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative’s (OGCI) ‘Aiming for zero methane by 2030’ leading the way (OGCI, 2022). Oil and gas production companies are investing in new processes and technologies to minimise GHG emissions in their production wells, tank farms, refineries, chemical plants, and pipeline operations. New control and monitoring systems are essential in the drive to minimise fugitive GHG emissions. Technologies to address fugitive emissions include smart, rugged solenoid- operated and electric valve systems for upstream oil and gas extraction designed to significantly reduce emissions at the wellhead and storage and separator systems. There are also reliable monitoring technologies that can help ensure thief hatches are locked on tank storage systems – a persistent source of fugitive emissions now subject to stringent regulations. Addressing fugitive emissions using these technologies can make a critical contribution towards meeting the industry’s emissions reduction goals.
While preventing fugitive emissions is one way companies are minimising GHG emissions and meeting regulations, some are pursuing new opportunities altogether. Natural gas producers are using new solutions to safely ramp up lower carbon intensity ammonia synthesised from more environmentally friendly blue hydrogen. Smarter, simpler valve controls and monitoring devices are key ‘areas of opportunity’ in the industry’s value chain to identify, control, and ultimately eliminate GHG emissions. Applying the right technology will have a dramatic cumulative impact on decarbonisation efforts. Significant new regulatory requirements In addition to voluntary initiatives, leading countries such as the US and the European Union have introduced regulations to significantly reduce GHG emissions from oil, gas, and coal mining operations. These regulations are designed to fulfil the US and EU’s commitments to the Global Methane Pledge, adopted by more than 100 countries at the COP26 UN Climate Conference in 2021. The Global Methane Pledge calls for countries to adopt policies that will reduce their total methane emissions by 30% by 2030 compared to 2020 levels. As a result, the EU is drafting a binding 2030 reduction target aimed at cutting direct methane emissions from the oil, fossil gas, and coal sectors, and from biomethane gas once it is injected into the network, as well as calling on EU member states to set national reduction targets. The EU regulations envisage a complete ban on venting and flaring of methane from drainage stations by 2025 and from ventilation shafts by
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
15
Figure 1 From the well pad to the refinery, the oil, gas, and chemical industry is investing in smart technology to reduce or eliminate GHG emissions from its operations
2027 while ensuring safety for workers in coal mines. These stringent requirements would also obligate all affected operators to submit a report to authorities detailing the sources and levels of methane emissions for operated assets. In addition to this reporting, operators covered by the EU and member state regulations must create a leak detection and repair (LDAR) programme for their assets, conduct periodic LDAR surveys, and repair or replace all components found to be leaking as soon as possible. Also, since imports make up more than 80% of the oil and gas consumed in the EU, it is being proposed that importers of coal, oil, and gas will have to demonstrate that the imported fossil energy lives up to the requirements in the regulation. In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has introduced 40 CFR Part 60, an extensive regulation for offshore and onshore petroleum and natural gas production and transport emissions. Included in that regulation are requirements for reducing harmful air pollution from new and existing oil and natural gas facilities. A significant part of that regulation directly impacts commonly used wellhead technology. It requires all new and existing pneumatic controllers at production wells and storage facilities to have zero carbon emissions. Additional regulations at the state and provincial
level in the US require the replacement of well-gas-driven pneumatic devices and the implementation of automatic pressure management and pilot light monitoring systems. The industry is global, so regulations formulated in Europe and North America ultimately impact technology and infrastructure decisions in all production and processing regions. The response from oil and gas companies has been positive as they recognise that improving the monitoring and control of GHG emissions in their operations is essential to achieve a net zero carbon future (see Figure 1 ). New zero emissions valve technology A significant source of GHG emissions in upstream production was essentially ‘built in’ to standard operating processes at wellheads and oil and gas separator assemblies. It was common to use the naturally pressurised methane produced by oil and gas wells as the media to actuate pneumatic components on wells and separators. In the past, this made economic sense: rather than install and maintain electrically powered compressed air systems at these remote sites (where grid power is at a minimum), gas-actuated pneumatic valves offered a simple solution. However, gas-actuated valves come with an obvious environmental drawback: actuating the valves exhausts the methane into the
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
16
environment. According to the EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory, eliminating all gas-actuated pneumatic valves could result in a 25% reduction in all methane emissions related to oil and gas operations. The oil and gas industry is exploring electrification to replace the gas-actuated valves at the well pad. Replacing these kinds of pneumatics with electrically actuated ones will help achieve the methane emission reduction targets and comply with the EPA regulations. Leading valve technology companies are now offering solenoid valves that provide simpler and more reliable valve devices with zero methane emissions. Some hybrid solutions use a three- way pilot valve that utilises a generator to send compressed air to an actuator that opens and closes the valve. Although this approach eliminates methane emissions, it requires multiple components, and there are costs associated with running the compressor. Those costs can accumulate on well pad systems such as two- and three-phase separators and free water knockout drums with multiple valves. In addition, they typically demand more electricity than is available at many sites. Simpler and more effective solenoid pilot valve solutions are also available. There are now solenoid valves that support
a reliable pilot valve replacement that oil and gas producers can more rapidly implement. Smarter monitoring to control thief hatch emissions It is estimated that close to half of all GHG emissions in major oil-producing basins are from oil storage tanks. In response, equipment companies and producers are installing better- designed and tighter sealing thief hatches, which are points of entry that allow personnel to access the tanks for maintenance and other tasks. While tighter sealing hatches are a good first step, even the best, most secure hatch will not seal if it is not closed. Similar to well pads, most storage tank batteries are in remote locations where days may pass between site visits, and a manual visual inspection of the tank top to verify that hatches are closed and sealed is time- consuming and inefficient. Regulatory attention is now focusing on unsecured thief hatches as a significant emission source that can be solved with the right tools. For example, regulations in place in Colorado and California require constant all hatches are secured. At the same time, the pressure in these storage tanks is subject to change due to factors such as external temperature change or liquid level change from filling or removing liquid content. In order to maintain a safe tank pressure, special valves are utilised, which are able to sense small changes in tank pressure. This kind of emission is permitted for safety reasons. Figure 2 Advanced solenoid technology like the ASCO Next Generation Series X210 and X223 from Emerson makes it easy to replace gas-actuated valves with electronically actuated solenoid valves in well pad production systems to comply with new regulatory requirements checking and documenting that each thief hatch is closed and latched, with some sites being fined up to US$25,000 for every day an operator is unable to verify that
a proof pressure of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) and a flow of 22.5 Cv with a maximum 1.2 watts of power. The combination of low power requirements and increased pressure and flow capabilities of new solenoid technology provides an advantage over more complex three-way pilot valves with a single assembly, simplifying installation, providing quicker actuation, and eliminating possible points of leakage (see Figure 2 ). The low-power design provides another important advantage: solar cells can be sufficient to supply the required power, making it easier to implement the changeover from well gas pneumatics and providing
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
17
The challenge for tank farm operators is how to monitor tank farm emissions and confirm that they are from permitted venting and not from unsecured thief hatches – and how to do so in an automated and efficient manner. Technology suppliers now offer wireless monitoring systems that can be retrofitted easily onto existing thief hatch and tank vent systems to accurately monitor both kinds of devices in real time. These reliable monitoring systems, engineered for use in outdoor environments, give tank farm operators the data they need to ensure that thief hatches are secured and are not the source of fugitive emissions (see Figure 3 ). With the wide range of thief hatch and latch configurations installed across the industry, it is important to select monitoring devices that feature modular designs that can reliably retrofit hatches using simple tools. This also minimises the risk of false positives showing an unsecured hatch is fully latched. Adding wireless monitoring to pressure safety valves complements thief valve monitoring by providing documentation that any emissions that do occur are the result of necessary safety release events. The data make it easier for facilities to satisfy required documentation. Ultimately, this kind of data can also provide oil and gas companies with valuable insights into the health and performance of these widely dispersed and sensitive storage systems. Many highly automated manufacturers in multiple industry segments are pursuing extensive digital transformation programmes that leverage smart
technology to improve their ability to capture and better utilise manufacturing and process data from across their operations to improve efficiency, productivity, and return on investment. This Floor to Cloud approach combines new sensors and smart valve systems to generate critical performance data. These data are aggregated and processed by edge computing systems for real-time reporting on production machine and line data; the same data are then shared in cloud-based analytics platforms for in-depth analysis and process improvements. Insights on the condition of thief hatches, how often they are opened and closed, as well as data on pressure relief valves can be correlated with other data to help improve preventative maintenance practices, guide investments in tank farm replacement and upgrades, and contribute vital data on fugitive emissions reductions programmes that oil and gas companies track for their decarbonisation efforts. Safely expanding blue ammonia production One of the key methods to help the oil and gas industry meet critical decarbonisation goals is carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS). Carbon capture is the process of capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions at the source or directly from the air, preventing it from entering the atmosphere. Once captured, CO2 is then purified, liquefied, and either utilised in other marketable industrial and commercial products or sent for long-term storage. Ammonia is manufactured by combining
Figure 3 Retrofitting tank thief hatches with smart monitoring tools such as the TopWorx Thief Hatch Monitoring Kit from Emerson can help reduce fugitive emissions by ensuring and documenting that hatches are secured when not in use
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
18
Figure 4 The ASCO Series
hydrogen and nitrogen. ‘Blue’ hydrogen is produced from natural gas using steam methane reforming (SMR) fitted with carbon capture technology to produce hydrogen with a much lower carbon intensity. Ammonia is heavily used in fertiliser production globally, so using blue hydrogen as the feedstock will consequently reduce the carbon intensity
Advanced Redundant Control System for emergency shutdown valve applications in SIS
These advanced redundant control systems are now available
in 2oo3 (two out of three) redundant solenoid valve piloting configurations. They combine the advantages of both 1oo2 and 2oo2 systems to achieve a high level of process safety and reliability. These advanced valve blocks feature a direct valve-to-valve design that eliminates pipework and fittings that could be points of failure. They also provide visual status indication and feedback to facilitate maintenance and bypass options to allow easy online maintenance. Decarbonising key oil and gas processes The oil and gas industry will continue to face major challenges as it seeks to meet worldwide decarbonisation goals, satisfy regulatory requirements, and still remain a profitable and valuable part of our modern industrial infrastructure. The application of smart new technologies such as low-wattage solenoid valves, thief hatch monitoring systems, and advanced redundant SIS platforms offer valuable tools at key points from wellhead to tank storage to refinery and chemical plants. Working with technology suppliers who have a deep understanding of the industry’s operations, process technology, and sustainability challenges can help provide insight and proven technologies to keep finding innovative ways to help reduce emissions and sustain competitive value. Floor to Cloud and TopWorx are trademarks of Emerson.
of the ammonia produced. In addition, with the surge of interest in hydrogen as a fuel, ammonia presents a lower cost to store or transport hydrogen over long distances. Hydrogen can then be recovered from the ammonia for use in applications such as fuel cells for cars. Expanding the production of blue ammonia will contribute to global decarbonisation goals, but this expansion needs to be done safely and efficiently. Ammonia production units, as well as all chemical plants, feature hundreds of critical solenoid valve systems. If any of these valves malfunction, operators may be forced to shut down processes with major cost impacts in lost production and time. Safety systems that can be used and tested without undue impact on normal operations can avoid unscheduled downtime and increase the value of these new plants. As such, these units are designed with safety instrumented systems (SIS), including sensors, controllers, and emergency shutdown (ESD) block valves that, in combination with plant monitoring and control systems, provide a multi- layered approach to process and personnel safety (see Figure 4 ). In many SIS applications, the solenoid valve remains energised in the open position during normal operation. To ensure the valve actuates in an overpressure or other hazardous event, valves need to be periodically actuated or ‘exercised’. However, exercising the SIS valve block can require downtime on a production line, and plant owners may resist this vital safety step. Fortunately, there are now advanced solenoid valve blocks that feature multiple valves in one block so that each solenoid can be tested separately without taking the entire SIS system offline.
VIEW REFERENCES
Anne-Sophie Kedad
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
19
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88Powered by FlippingBook