Achieving the target set during COP21 will require the deployment of a diverse portfolio of solutions, including fuel switching, improvements in energy efficiency, increasing use of nuclear and renewable power, as well as carbon capture and storage (CCS). It is in the context of CCS that carbon capture and utilisation (CCU), or conversion (CCC), is often mentioned. Once we have captured and purified the CO2, it is sometimes argued that we should aim to convert the CO2 to useful products such as fuels or plastics, or otherwise use the CO2 in processes such as enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR). This is broadly referred to as CCU. In this webinar, Niall Mac Dowell, Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in the Centre for Process Systems Engineering and the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College London, presented about the scale of the challenge associated with climate change mitigation and contextualise the value which CO2 conversion and utilisation options can provide.

1. Perspectives on the role of CO2 capture and utilisation
(CCU) in climate change mitigation
Webinar – Thursday, 22 September 2016

2.  Niall is a Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in the Centre for Process
Systems Engineering and the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial
College London.
 He is a Chartered Engineer (equivalent to a PE in the US) with the IChemE,
and is on the Executive Board of the IChemE’s Energy Centre. He currently
leads a research group of four PDRAs and 10 PhD students all of whom are
focused on the generation and utilisation of low carbon energy.
 He has published work at the molecular, unit, integrated process and network
scales in the context of decarbonised Energy Systems. He provided written
evidence to members of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate
Change and has given advice to DECC, the IEA, the ETI and the JRC in a
number of paid consultancy roles and has travelled on behalf of the Foreign
Office to China and Korea to promote low carbon power generation.
 He was awarded the Qatar Petroleum Prize for his work on Clean Fossil
Fuels in 2010, and the IChemE’s Nicklin medal for his work on low carbon
energy in 2015. Since 2010, he has authored over 30 papers and his work
has been presented more than 100 times at conferences in the UK, EU, US,
Middle East and China.
Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor), Imperial College London
Niall Mac Dowell

3. QUESTIONS
 We will collect questions during
the presentation.
 Your Webinar Host will pose
these question to the
presenters after the
presentation.
 Please submit your questions
directly into the GoToWebinar
control panel.

4. Perspectives on the role of CCU in
mitigating climate change
Niall Mac Dowell
Imperial College London
niall@imperial.ac.uk
@niallmacdowell

5. Motivation for CCUS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060
GtCO2/yr
Year
BP Data
High (2.8%/yr)
Med (2.38%/yr)
Low (1.96%/yr)
6DS (1.4%)
2DS
2DS
6DS
Last 5 years
Last 15 years
Average since
1965
BP Statistical review, 2014, IEA ETP 2012 and 2014

6. Motivation for CCUS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060
GtCO2/yr
Year
BP Data
6DS (1.4%)
2DS
Mitigation challenge
𝑀𝐶 =
𝑡 𝑓−𝑡 𝑝 (𝐸 𝐵𝐴𝑈(𝑡 𝑝)−𝐸2𝐷𝑆)
2
,
𝐸 𝐵𝐴𝑈
𝑡 𝑝 = 𝐸 𝑡𝑝
1 + 𝑟 𝑡 𝑓−𝑡 𝑝
This implies > 120GtCO2
sequestered by CCS by 2050
BP Statistical review, 2014, IEA ETP 2012 and 2014
𝑡𝑓𝑡 𝑝
𝐸 𝐵𝐴𝑈(𝑡 𝑝)
𝐸2𝐷𝑆
MC
𝑀𝐶 ≥ 800 𝐺𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
by 2050
14% ≤ 𝐶𝐶𝑆 ≤ 20%
𝐸 𝑡𝑝

7. • In the absence of
– binding international climate agreements
– a sufficiently high price on CO2 emissions
• CCUS might give sufficient value to CO2 to
incentivise its capture..?
• Need to identify of a range of
– products which can be derived from CO2
– technical uses for CO2
Motivation for CCUS

8. CCS vs. CCU vs. CCC vs. CCUS vs. …
• It is important to define terms and be clear
about purpose
• What began as CCS seems to have morphed
into CCUS and in some cases is simply CCU

9. • CCS : CO2 Capture and Sequestration (Storage)
– The capture of CO2 from a large, fixed point source and
subsequent permanent geological sequestration
• CCU : CO2 Capture and Utilisation
– The capture of CO2 from a large, fixed point source and
subsequent utilisation in industrial processes, principally CO2
Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)
• CCC: CO2 Capture and Conversion
– capture of CO2 from a large, fixed point source and subsequent
conversion of that CO2 to a “high value” end product, e.g.,
fuels or chemicals
• CCUS : CO2 Capture, Utilisation and Sequestration
– capture of CO2 from a large, fixed point source and subsequent
conversion of some/all of that CO2 and the sequestration of the
remainder
CCS vs. CCU vs. CCC vs. CCUS vs. …

10. • It is important to note that the history of CCU
comes from the American CO2-EOR industry
– Very mature industry, operating since the 1960s
– Originally used naturally occurring CO2
– High oil prices drove the capture of anthropogenic
CO2 for use in CO2-EOR
– At oil prices of ~ $100/bbl, CO2 needs to be
available at ~ $45/tonne1
– Recent cost estimates of CO2 capture from power
stations at ~ $60 - 70/tCO2
2
What could CO2-EOR contribute?
1: J. J. Dooley, et al., Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage. 2006, Battelle Memorial Institute.
2. Charles, D., Stimulus Gives DOE Billions for Carbon-Capture Projects. Science, 2009. 323(5918): p. 1158.

11. CO2 EOR Oil Miscible CO2 Oil Ratio
Upper
bound
Lower
bound
Recovery Basin (tonnes/Bbl) CO2 Stored CO2 Stored
Region Name (MMBO) Count (Gt) (Gt)
Asia Pacific 18,376 6 0.27 5 2.76
Central and South America 31,697 6 0.32 10.1 4.75
Europe 16,312 2 0.29 4.7 2.45
Former Soviet Union 78,715 6 0.27 21.6 11.81
Middle East and North Africa 230,640 11 0.3 70.1 34.60
North America/Non-U.S. 18,080 3 0.33 5.9 2.71
United States 60,204 14 0.29 17.2 9.03
South Asia - 0 N/A -
Sub-Saharan Africa and
Antarctica 14,505 2 0.3 4.4 2.18
Total 468,529 50 0.296 139 70
What could CO2-EOR contribute?
• There appears to be substantial CO2-EOR capacity, albeit
with a large uncertainty
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, CO2 Storage in Depleted Oilfields: Global Application Criteria for Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery, Report IEA/CON/08/155

12. What could CO2-EOR contribute?
• CCS targets and EOR capacity are poorly aligned – this may limit the
potential contribution of EOR
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
GtCO2
EOR Capacity (Gt)
CCS target (Gt)

13. CO2 balance of CO2-EOR
Conventional EOR1
Advanced EOR1
Max Storage EOR1
~ 3.33𝑏𝑏𝑙 𝑜𝑖𝑙
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑
~ 1.67𝑏𝑏𝑙 𝑜𝑖𝑙
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑
~ 1.1𝑏𝑏𝑙 𝑜𝑖𝑙
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑
~ 1.43𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
𝑒𝑚
~ 0.72𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
𝑒𝑚
~ 0.48𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
𝑒𝑚
1 𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
𝑖𝑛𝑗
1 𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
𝑖𝑛𝑗
1 𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
𝑖𝑛𝑗
0.43 𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
𝑁𝑒𝑡
-0.28 𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
𝑁𝑒𝑡
-0.52 𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
𝑁𝑒𝑡
Need also to consider what gets displaced, e.g., unconventional oil with a CO2 intensity
of 108 – 173% of conventional oil3 =>a net 0.46 – 0.74𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑
/𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
𝑖𝑛𝑗
1: IEA, “Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery”, 2015
2: https://www.epa.gov/energy/ghg-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references
3: Mui, et al., “GHG Emission Factors for High Carbon Intensity Crude Oils”, NRDC, 2010

14. Mac Dowell et al., Energy and Environmental Science, 2010
Leading technology options for CCC
• Note scale: kt/yr – Mt/yr

15. Key enablers for CCC
• Low carbon energy
– Intermittent renewable energy = poor capacity factor/credit
• Wind (CF: 36 – 38%) $73.6 – 196.9/MWh1,
• Solar (CF: 20 – 25%) $125.3 – 239.7/MWh1
– Geothermal energy is not widely available – Iceland’s CRI example is quite
unique here
• Geothermal energy (CF: 92%) $47.8/MWh1,
• Low carbon/renewable H2 production
– Alkaline water electrolysis is very mature, operating on large scale, e.g., 3,000
kg/hr in Aswan, Egypt
– Not well suited to intermittent operation (this is improving)
– CAPEX ~ $1,100 – 1,200/kgH2.day for a 1,000 kgH2/day unit2
– OPEX ~ $2.67/kgH2 (geothermal), $3.7/kgH2 (onshore wind) $10.69/kgH2
(offshore wind) with current SOTA performance2,3
– For comparison, H2 production via SMR ~ $1-2/kg as a function of CH4 prices4
• Available CO2
– a likely state is P= 60 - 20 bar, T = 30 °C, y ~ 95 mol% CO2, 4 mol% N2, <1
mol% others
– Cost $60 – 70/tCO2
1: www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
2: NREL, “Current (2009) State-of-the-Art Hydrogen Production Cost Estimate Using Water Electrolysis”
3: I E A/H I A T A S K 2 5 : High Temperature Hydrogen Productions Process: Alkaline Electrolysis
4: NRES, “Hydrogen Supply: Cost Estimate for Hydrogen Pathways - Scoping Analysis”, 2002

16. CO2 balance of CO2-CH3OH
Catalytic hydrogenation of CO2
1 tCH3OH
0.12 tCO2/tCH3OH
1.48 tCO2/tCH3OH
0.2 tH2/tCH3OH
1.82 tH2O/tCH3OH
40.6 GJel/tCH3OH 3.0 GJth/tCH3OH
1: É.S. Van-Dal, C. Bouallou, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2013, 57, 38 – 45
2: Atlason and Unnthorsson, "Ideal EROI (energy return on investment) deepens the understanding of energy systems". Energy, 2014, 67, 241–45.
3: Hall, et al., "EROI of different fuels and the implications for society". Energy Policy, 2013, 64, 141–52.
A fuel or energy must have an EROEI ratio of at least 3:1 to be considered realistically
viable as a prominent fuel or energy source2,3
𝐸𝑅𝑂𝐸𝐼 =
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦
= 0.451

17. CO2-EOR vs. CO2-MeOH
1 𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
𝑖𝑛𝑗
~1.1 - 3.33𝑏𝑏𝑙 𝑜𝑖𝑙
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑
0.43 – (-0.52) 𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
𝑁𝑒𝑡
1 𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
𝑐𝑎𝑝
0.08 𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
𝑐𝑎𝑝
1.23 𝑡 𝐻2 𝑂
𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐
0.67 𝑡 𝑀𝑒𝑂𝐻
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑
1.0 𝑡 𝐶𝑂2
𝑁𝑒𝑡
All data for energy density, CO2 intensity etc.from: https://www.epa.gov/energy/ghg-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references,
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=327&t=9 and http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=11

18. CO2-EOR vs. CO2-MeOH
• Can also compare MeOH and gasoline (petrol)
on an energy basis (potentially controversial)
All data for energy density, CO2 intensity, gal/bbl, etc.from: https://www.epa.gov/energy/ghg-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references,
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=327&t=9 and http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=11
1 bblOil 19 Galgasoline/bbloil =
53.22 kggasoline/bbloil
2,469 MJgasoline/bbloil 164.46 kgCO2/bbloil
125.36 kgMeOH/bbloil 188.04* kgCO2/bbleq
• *188.04kgCO2/bbleq = 125.36 kgMeOH/bbleq(1.38 kgCO2/kgMeOH) + 0.12(125.36) kgCO2/kgMeOH
• Using CO2-derived MeOH for fuel could result in as much as 114% of the CO2 that would
otherwise be associated with gasoline/petrol for an equivalent transport service

19. MeOH as a fuel additive on a GGE1 basis
1: Butcher, Tina; Crown, Linda; Sebring, Lynn; Suiter, Richard & Williams, Juana, eds. (2006). "Appendix D: Definitions" (PDF). Specifications, Tolerances, and Other
Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, as Adopted by the 91st National Conference on Weights and Measures 2006 (2007 ed.). Gaithersburg, MD:
National Institute of Standards and Technology. p. D-8. Handbook 44. Retrieved January 2, 2009.
0.99
1.00
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
CO2/MJ(NORM)
MJ/KGFUEL
XMEOH (WT%)
MJ/kgfuel kgCO2/Mjfuel MeOH (norm)

20. CCC and CO2 storage
• The storage of CO2 is frequently short term – especially for largest sinks; methanol
and urea. Polymers (decades) and mineral carbonation (permanent) are exceptions
to this rule.
• The use of CO2 as a novel feedstock is a good idea if it is justified by the economics
• “Short term” storage will not have significant climate benefit
• “Short term” is anything less than ~ 1,000 years
Data from Wilcox, Carbon Capture
Process Lifetime of storage
Urea < 6 months
Methanol < 6 months
Inorganic Carbonates Decades
Organic Carbonates Decades
Polyurethanes Decades
Technological Days to years
Food and Drink Days to years
Geological sequestration Centuries

21. What could CO2 Conversion contribute?
• Given historical performance, CO2 utilisation could increase at a rate
of ~ 3%/yr from a 200 MtCO2/yr baseline
• Low, central and high growth rates are 2, 3 and 4%/yr

22. Contrast with contribution of EOR
• Given historical performance, CO2-EOR could increase at a rate of ~
10%/yr from a 60 MtCO2/yr baseline
• Low, central and high growth rates are 8, 11 and 13%/yr

23. What could CO2 Conversion contribute?
• Only about 25% of CCC corresponds to actual sequestration
• This is likely a generous estimate

24. Conclusions
• Meeting the IEA 2DS involves the mitigation of > 800 GtCO2
• CO2-EOR can deliver 4.5% of this – perhaps as much as 8 – 10% in
some very ambitious cases
• CO2 conversion could deliver 0.49 – 0.6%
• A key bottleneck to industrial scale deployment of many CCC
technologies is likely to be cost effective availability of low
carbon/renewable H2
• Key niche opportunities
– CO2 to plastics (Bayer DREAM process)
– Mineral carbonation of industrial waste
• Need to beware of unintended consequences, e.g., CO2 -> MeOH =
115% of the CO2 emissions associated with gasoline..?
– This means CCC could have the effect of substantially increasing the
mitigation challenge
– Transport emissions are notoriously “hard to reach”
• Are you taking a concentrated point source of CO2 and converting it to a diffuse
source?

25. QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION
Please submit your questions in
English directly into the
GoToWebinar control panel.

26. Please submit any feedback to: webinar@globalccsinstitute.com