The research is a part of the AGaStor project realized in AGH-UST and University of Stavanger. The aim of the paper is to present social aspects of the developing the CCS/US technology in Poland described as social awareness (SA) and public acceptance (PA). The main research questions of the CCS/US PA concentrates on knowledge, acceptance of the technology, risks and benefits, the existence of NIMBY movements [1].The quantitative method of analysis of CCS PA is a survey method. The most of the former research was realized only in small communities [2, 3]. The AGaStor research describes the mezzo-social level of the CCS/US PA. The randomized sample (N= 695) was made in Zachodniopomorskie region (West-North Poland) in 2021. It allows to recognize differences of the level of CCS/US PA in different in that part of Poland. The main variables which influence CCS/US PA are: place of living, education, economic situations and general worldview of the respondents. The results show the correlation between place of living and CCS PA (higher PA in big cities); education with CCS SA (higher declarations of knowledge and SA by well educated people); NIMBY potential in villages and small towns, and the pro-technological worldview with the CCS PA. The research points that the main social obstacle is the lack of knowledge about the CCS/US technology. Even respondents who declare the general acceptation of new technologies in energy production are ambivalent towards acceptance of CCS/US.
{"title":"Public acceptance of CCS/CCUS technology in onshore areas in NW Poland","authors":"D. Wojakowski, O. Langhelle, M. Assadi, S. Nagy","doi":"10.21595/bcf.2022.22935","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21595/bcf.2022.22935","url":null,"abstract":"The research is a part of the AGaStor project realized in AGH-UST and University of Stavanger. The aim of the paper is to present social aspects of the developing the CCS/US technology in Poland described as social awareness (SA) and public acceptance (PA). The main research questions of the CCS/US PA concentrates on knowledge, acceptance of the technology, risks and benefits, the existence of NIMBY movements [1].The quantitative method of analysis of CCS PA is a survey method. The most of the former research was realized only in small communities [2, 3]. The AGaStor research describes the mezzo-social level of the CCS/US PA. The randomized sample (N= 695) was made in Zachodniopomorskie region (West-North Poland) in 2021. It allows to recognize differences of the level of CCS/US PA in different in that part of Poland. The main variables which influence CCS/US PA are: place of living, education, economic situations and general worldview of the respondents. The results show the correlation between place of living and CCS PA (higher PA in big cities); education with CCS SA (higher declarations of knowledge and SA by well educated people); NIMBY potential in villages and small towns, and the pro-technological worldview with the CCS PA. The research points that the main social obstacle is the lack of knowledge about the CCS/US technology. Even respondents who declare the general acceptation of new technologies in energy production are ambivalent towards acceptance of CCS/US.","PeriodicalId":102917,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Carbon Forum","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122283962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Parvin Ahmadi, S. Rezaei Gomari, F. Ahmad, Mohammad Aziz Rahman
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is proved to be effective measure for reducing CO2 emissions. whilst the world still highly depends on the use of fossil fuel energy, this method is necessary for reaching the world’s 1.5 °C goal.In CCS, CO2 is hindered from entering the atmosphere by capturing it from sources of emission and storing it in geological formation. Saline aquifers among all possible underground formations are most common targeted ones for CO2 storage due to their frequent presence, and large storage capacity. However, this storage option suffers from sufficient well injectivity to inject large volumes of CO2 at acceptable rates through a minimum number of wells.The injectivity impairment / reinforcement happens through mineral dissolution, fine particle movement, salt precipitation and hydrate formation (known so far). Each of these mechanisms will be more dominant in injectivity alteration at different distance from the injection point depending on reservoir pressure and temperature, formation water salinity, rock mineralogy, and flow rate of CO2 injection as well as its dryness.Incorporating all the finding into radial flow near wellbore will help gaining insight into the resultant of injectivity changes over time and distant from injection point. In this study we have chosen Eclipse 300 together with an open-source code to investigate the impact of formation characteristics, CO2 -Brine-Rock interaction, pressure, temperature as well as injection rate on injectivity alteration. The goal for this work is to provide a workflow which can help predicting injectivity alteration using the existing tools.Simulation results show that the high homogenous horizontal permeability in combination with vertical flow baffles in the formation (among all other parameters) has positive impact on storage capacity by increasing residual trapping. However, permeability is affected severely by salt precipitation during CO2 injection. Combined static and dynamic parameter study demonstrate that the injection rate plays a crucial role in size and expansion of CO2 plume as well as growth rate of dry out zone length, amount of salt precipitation and length of equilibrium region. The higher the injection rate, the quicker activation of the capillary and gravity force which leads to drag more brine to near well-bore resulting in higher volume fraction of salt precipitation. However, low injection rate could result in smaller CO2 plume, shorter dry out zone and longer equilibrium region in term of distance from injection point.
{"title":"Comprehensive sensitivity analysis on static and dynamic reservoir parameters impacting near wellbore injectivity during CO2 sequestration","authors":"Parvin Ahmadi, S. Rezaei Gomari, F. Ahmad, Mohammad Aziz Rahman","doi":"10.21595/bcf.2022.22784","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21595/bcf.2022.22784","url":null,"abstract":"Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is proved to be effective measure for reducing CO2 emissions. whilst the world still highly depends on the use of fossil fuel energy, this method is necessary for reaching the world’s 1.5 °C goal.In CCS, CO2 is hindered from entering the atmosphere by capturing it from sources of emission and storing it in geological formation. Saline aquifers among all possible underground formations are most common targeted ones for CO2 storage due to their frequent presence, and large storage capacity. However, this storage option suffers from sufficient well injectivity to inject large volumes of CO2 at acceptable rates through a minimum number of wells.The injectivity impairment / reinforcement happens through mineral dissolution, fine particle movement, salt precipitation and hydrate formation (known so far). Each of these mechanisms will be more dominant in injectivity alteration at different distance from the injection point depending on reservoir pressure and temperature, formation water salinity, rock mineralogy, and flow rate of CO2 injection as well as its dryness.Incorporating all the finding into radial flow near wellbore will help gaining insight into the resultant of injectivity changes over time and distant from injection point. In this study we have chosen Eclipse 300 together with an open-source code to investigate the impact of formation characteristics, CO2 -Brine-Rock interaction, pressure, temperature as well as injection rate on injectivity alteration. The goal for this work is to provide a workflow which can help predicting injectivity alteration using the existing tools.Simulation results show that the high homogenous horizontal permeability in combination with vertical flow baffles in the formation (among all other parameters) has positive impact on storage capacity by increasing residual trapping. However, permeability is affected severely by salt precipitation during CO2 injection. Combined static and dynamic parameter study demonstrate that the injection rate plays a crucial role in size and expansion of CO2 plume as well as growth rate of dry out zone length, amount of salt precipitation and length of equilibrium region. The higher the injection rate, the quicker activation of the capillary and gravity force which leads to drag more brine to near well-bore resulting in higher volume fraction of salt precipitation. However, low injection rate could result in smaller CO2 plume, shorter dry out zone and longer equilibrium region in term of distance from injection point.","PeriodicalId":102917,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Carbon Forum","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130718550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Far from being Plan B, carbon di oxide removal is a critical part of Plan A (as laid out by IPCC > 5GT will be needed by 2050). Without removing excess carbon from the air our toolbox is missing a major tool needed to curb climate change. Current global capacity of carbon removal is ~10,000 tons/annum.This paper will present a summary of current state of technology of carbon removal alternatives, with a specific focus on engineered Direct Air Capture systems. The current energy intensity, capex intensity and cost challenges faced by many of the DAC players will be discussed.The presentation will also cover nature-based capture methods and current challenges in the measurement, reporting and verification and eventual trading of these carbon credits.The presentation will present a market view of the potential scale of carbon removal credits in the near future, its demand and potential supply constraints.
{"title":"Carbon removal – pathways, technologies, and need","authors":"Shantanu Agarwal","doi":"10.21595/bcf.2022.22946","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21595/bcf.2022.22946","url":null,"abstract":"Far from being Plan B, carbon di oxide removal is a critical part of Plan A (as laid out by IPCC > 5GT will be needed by 2050). Without removing excess carbon from the air our toolbox is missing a major tool needed to curb climate change. Current global capacity of carbon removal is ~10,000 tons/annum.This paper will present a summary of current state of technology of carbon removal alternatives, with a specific focus on engineered Direct Air Capture systems. The current energy intensity, capex intensity and cost challenges faced by many of the DAC players will be discussed.The presentation will also cover nature-based capture methods and current challenges in the measurement, reporting and verification and eventual trading of these carbon credits.The presentation will present a market view of the potential scale of carbon removal credits in the near future, its demand and potential supply constraints.","PeriodicalId":102917,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Carbon Forum","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129864782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
These days we see a growing interest and more concrete project plans for CCUS in many European countries but with a pathway to “Net Zero”, we are fare from on-track! This definitely implies a stronger push for CCUS in Europe.Although we can show 26 years of permanently stored CO2 in deep geological formations offshore Norway, heavily studied and monitored, there are still many questions about whether CCS is a safe and viable technology. Based on this experience and many years of research and development, we can conclude that this is a viable and safe technology.We know that we have a large storage resources for CO2 on land and offshore in Europe, and we have large CO2 emissions that need to be captured. If CCUS is to achieve the economies of scale necessary to reduce costs and develop technology, cooperation is needed. Like other technologies that are expensive at the start, CO2capture needs to be more efficient and by that less expensive and we need an effort to speed up the mapping and characterization of safe CO2 storage capacity. However, CCUS is the lowest cost, or only, option for many industries to decarbonize, and these industries will be fully exposed to the carbon price by 2023, so CCUS is essential to deliver large-scale and permanent removal of CO2.To contribute to the development of technology for capture, transport, and storage of CO2, with the ambition of achieving a cost-effective solution, the Norwegian government decided in 2020 to develop a full-scale carbon capture and storage project, called Longship.As a result of this decision, we now see that the next phase for CCS is already underway with a growing interest in new areas for CO2storage and more industrial demonstration projects for emission reductions. On the Norwegian continental shelf, three licenses for offshore storage of CO2have been awarded in recent years, these involve 5 companies, and new license applications and new companies are on the way. These companies have presented clear projects involving the entire business chain.We have the knowledge and the technology is ready, so why isn't the CCUS flying? Perhaps it is about setting clear political goals, transporting CO2across national borders, removing potential regulatory barriers and developing new business models. Easy? Let's talk about it and cooperate.
{"title":"Carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) – it’s happening now! However, are there still any challenges?","authors":"E. Halland","doi":"10.21595/bcf.2022.22890","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21595/bcf.2022.22890","url":null,"abstract":"These days we see a growing interest and more concrete project plans for CCUS in many European countries but with a pathway to “Net Zero”, we are fare from on-track! This definitely implies a stronger push for CCUS in Europe.Although we can show 26 years of permanently stored CO2 in deep geological formations offshore Norway, heavily studied and monitored, there are still many questions about whether CCS is a safe and viable technology. Based on this experience and many years of research and development, we can conclude that this is a viable and safe technology.We know that we have a large storage resources for CO2 on land and offshore in Europe, and we have large CO2 emissions that need to be captured. If CCUS is to achieve the economies of scale necessary to reduce costs and develop technology, cooperation is needed. Like other technologies that are expensive at the start, CO2capture needs to be more efficient and by that less expensive and we need an effort to speed up the mapping and characterization of safe CO2 storage capacity. However, CCUS is the lowest cost, or only, option for many industries to decarbonize, and these industries will be fully exposed to the carbon price by 2023, so CCUS is essential to deliver large-scale and permanent removal of CO2.To contribute to the development of technology for capture, transport, and storage of CO2, with the ambition of achieving a cost-effective solution, the Norwegian government decided in 2020 to develop a full-scale carbon capture and storage project, called Longship.As a result of this decision, we now see that the next phase for CCS is already underway with a growing interest in new areas for CO2storage and more industrial demonstration projects for emission reductions. On the Norwegian continental shelf, three licenses for offshore storage of CO2have been awarded in recent years, these involve 5 companies, and new license applications and new companies are on the way. These companies have presented clear projects involving the entire business chain.We have the knowledge and the technology is ready, so why isn't the CCUS flying? Perhaps it is about setting clear political goals, transporting CO2across national borders, removing potential regulatory barriers and developing new business models. Easy? Let's talk about it and cooperate.","PeriodicalId":102917,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Carbon Forum","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128092461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Capturing CO2 and preventing it from being released into the atmosphere was first suggested in 1977; using existing technology in new ways. CO2 capture technology has been used since the 1920s for separating CO2 sometimes found in natural gas reservoirs from the saleable methane gas. More recently, investment in CCS is being driven by the oil and gas industries as well as cement, iron and steel, and chemical production industries in the push for decarbonization. Once it is separated from other gases, the carbon dioxide is then compressed, transported, and injected underground for permanent storage. About 90-100 % of produced carbon dioxide can be captured in this manner. Many are betting on CCS as a key to greenhouse gas emission reductions, since leveraging CCS is expected to achieve 14-19 % of the reductions needed by 2050 (1,2,3). In 2020, we sent 40 billion metric tons (t) of carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere. We need to cut that number to 0 by 2050 if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The objectives of this paper is to present the patent landscape of Baltic sea region countries (BSR), which includes Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Poland and Norway. To perform the analysis searches have been conducted to identify patents related to Carbon capture and sequestration for the BSR. Patent analytics searches have been restricted to dates from 2000-2020. Technologies investigated mainly focuses on CO2 storage, monitoring, utilization and transport.The patent analytics searches have been conducted to identify patents related to CCUS technology. The search resulted in 3299 patent families. A relevancy analysis was done to identify patents which are related to CCUS & resulted in 497 patent families. Identified relevant patents have been categorized in a classification scheme. Results of this patent analytics work shows that in 2009 we have the greatest number of IP activity for CCUS. Exponential growth in patent filing since 2005-2009, showing an increasing trend for CCUS activities, 2010-2015 has an exponential decreasing trend for CCUS activities. In northern and eastern Europe, Russia & Poland are leading the research & patent filing in the CCUS domain. From industry point of view General Electrics (GE)has the highest number of publications followed by Mitsubishi and Siemens. 85 % of 497 relevant Patent families are Alive. GE has around 78 % of its families alive. The top patents are related to capture, storage, sequestration or disposal of greenhouse gases and followed by patents related to separation processes. CO2 capture is the most explored technology/CCUS type along with storage. Unfortunately, there is a decreasing trend in patent filings since 2016. The CCUS technologies are striving to gain traction in the set of options for dealing with climate change, but growth is very slow due to absence or low intervention of g
{"title":"Analyzing technology landscape of carbon capture storage and utilization in Baltic Sea region through patents","authors":"M. Pal, V. Karaliūtė","doi":"10.21595/bcf.2022.22939","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21595/bcf.2022.22939","url":null,"abstract":"Capturing CO2 and preventing it from being released into the atmosphere was first suggested in 1977; using existing technology in new ways. CO2 capture technology has been used since the 1920s for separating CO2 sometimes found in natural gas reservoirs from the saleable methane gas. More recently, investment in CCS is being driven by the oil and gas industries as well as cement, iron and steel, and chemical production industries in the push for decarbonization. Once it is separated from other gases, the carbon dioxide is then compressed, transported, and injected underground for permanent storage. About 90-100 % of produced carbon dioxide can be captured in this manner. Many are betting on CCS as a key to greenhouse gas emission reductions, since leveraging CCS is expected to achieve 14-19 % of the reductions needed by 2050 (1,2,3). In 2020, we sent 40 billion metric tons (t) of carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere. We need to cut that number to 0 by 2050 if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The objectives of this paper is to present the patent landscape of Baltic sea region countries (BSR), which includes Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Poland and Norway. To perform the analysis searches have been conducted to identify patents related to Carbon capture and sequestration for the BSR. Patent analytics searches have been restricted to dates from 2000-2020. Technologies investigated mainly focuses on CO2 storage, monitoring, utilization and transport.The patent analytics searches have been conducted to identify patents related to CCUS technology. The search resulted in 3299 patent families. A relevancy analysis was done to identify patents which are related to CCUS & resulted in 497 patent families. Identified relevant patents have been categorized in a classification scheme. Results of this patent analytics work shows that in 2009 we have the greatest number of IP activity for CCUS. Exponential growth in patent filing since 2005-2009, showing an increasing trend for CCUS activities, 2010-2015 has an exponential decreasing trend for CCUS activities. In northern and eastern Europe, Russia & Poland are leading the research & patent filing in the CCUS domain. From industry point of view General Electrics (GE)has the highest number of publications followed by Mitsubishi and Siemens. 85 % of 497 relevant Patent families are Alive. GE has around 78 % of its families alive. The top patents are related to capture, storage, sequestration or disposal of greenhouse gases and followed by patents related to separation processes. CO2 capture is the most explored technology/CCUS type along with storage. Unfortunately, there is a decreasing trend in patent filings since 2016. The CCUS technologies are striving to gain traction in the set of options for dealing with climate change, but growth is very slow due to absence or low intervention of g","PeriodicalId":102917,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Carbon Forum","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127151305","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Achema is a leading producer of nitrogen fertilizers and chemical products in Lithuania and the Baltic states. First construction works of the factory date back to 1962, however officially the company was founded on February 9, 1965 after the first tons of synthetic ammonia were produced in a newly launched ammonia unit. Carbon capture and sequestration has been considered as suitable measure of decarbonization during middle term – till year 2030. There is developed technology and logistic chains for on shore and offshore projects. The geographical location of companies plays crucial role because of logistics. SC “Achema” yearly emits more than 2 million tons of CO2. Our advantage is in having 200-300 kilo T of pure CO2 suitable to liquify and transport. Disadvantage of this topic in Lithuania is political attitude and big distances till real wells at North Sea. The deep check of all aspects necessary to estimate real potential of CCS in Lithuania.The company aspires for significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and is the winner of ‘Most Environment Friendly Process' nomination for greenhouse gas emission (NO) mitigation in the nitric acid manufacturing process. Company aspires for sustainable and safe production of fertilizers and has also has also developed capabilities to liquify and transport CO2 over long distances. In this conference Achema’s capabilities to liquify 200-300 kilo T of pure CO2 will be highlighted. Potential challenges related to long distance transfer and political challenges will be also be highlighted.
{"title":"Potential of CCS at SC Achema","authors":"Juozas Tunaitis","doi":"10.21595/bcf.2022.22864","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21595/bcf.2022.22864","url":null,"abstract":"Achema is a leading producer of nitrogen fertilizers and chemical products in Lithuania and the Baltic states. First construction works of the factory date back to 1962, however officially the company was founded on February 9, 1965 after the first tons of synthetic ammonia were produced in a newly launched ammonia unit. Carbon capture and sequestration has been considered as suitable measure of decarbonization during middle term – till year 2030. There is developed technology and logistic chains for on shore and offshore projects. The geographical location of companies plays crucial role because of logistics. SC “Achema” yearly emits more than 2 million tons of CO2. Our advantage is in having 200-300 kilo T of pure CO2 suitable to liquify and transport. Disadvantage of this topic in Lithuania is political attitude and big distances till real wells at North Sea. The deep check of all aspects necessary to estimate real potential of CCS in Lithuania.The company aspires for significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and is the winner of ‘Most Environment Friendly Process' nomination for greenhouse gas emission (NO) mitigation in the nitric acid manufacturing process. Company aspires for sustainable and safe production of fertilizers and has also has also developed capabilities to liquify and transport CO2 over long distances. In this conference Achema’s capabilities to liquify 200-300 kilo T of pure CO2 will be highlighted. Potential challenges related to long distance transfer and political challenges will be also be highlighted.","PeriodicalId":102917,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Carbon Forum","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131250167","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：