- Email: [email protected]
Safety issues for carbon capture and storage
Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1–2
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Process Safety and Environmental Protection journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psep
Editorial
Safety issues for carbon capture and storage
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is now recognised, and increasingly promoted, as part of a mix of solutions to the prevention or limitation of global warming. Massive deployment of carbon capture is expected to be required if it is to make an impact on climate change. The International Energy Authority (IEA) CCS Technology Roadmap (IEA, 2013) gives a series of goals culminating in the annual storage of over 7000 Mt CO2 worldwide by 2050. The safety of such CCS projects needs to adequately managed within the response to global warming while also managing the need to meet future energy demands. CCS needs to be integrated with power generation technologies and so it is necessary to establish the nature of the risks already presented by existing technologies, the potential risks of the of new technologies, and their interactions. The UK safety regulator, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), seeks to anticipate emerging issues that could have the potential to impact on health and safety from work activities in the future. HSE set up its Emerging Energy Technologies Programme (EETP) to evaluate potential risks from a range of such technologies including wider use of LNG, cleaner coal technologies, CCS and renewables (HSE, 2010). HSE has a dual role: both to safeguard workers and the public, and to help enable emerging technologies, including CCS. These roles are interlinked. Sound health and safety is crucial to secure public, investor and wider industrial/commercial confidence, which is required for successful uptake of a new technology. HSE has helped to identify possible safety issues that could delay or prevent uptake and to stimulate the industry to address them. In addition, any current gaps in safety regulation relating to the new technologies have been identified by the EETP and addressed accordingly. This was in recognition that a clarity in regulatory requirements was important for potential investors. For CCS, hazard identification (Connolly and Cusco, 2007) began with the first proposed UK CCS project, the joint venture between BP and Scottish and Southern Energy at Peterhead Power Station, which did not ultimately proceed. Further work included investigation of CCS technologies and mapping of gaps in knowledge, guidance and regulation (Shuter et al., 2011). Key knowledge gaps requiring research included the model development and experimental validation of source terms for CO2 releases (particularly from conditions that will cause solid CO2 to be produced); physical properties of CO2 mixtures such as would be produced and transported in CCS systems; and suitable materials for use in
CCS systems. The EETP developed a strategy for encouraging industry and collaborative research projects to address such issues and to develop guidance. This has included the establishment of several major research projects such as: MATTRAN (EPRSC funded project on materials for next generation CO2 transport systems); CO2 PipeHaz (EU project on quantitative hazard assessment for next generation CO2 pipelines); CO2 PIPETRANS Phase 2 (DNV-led JIP to produce dense phase CO2 release modelling validation data, and information on fracture arrest and corrosion); COOLTRANS (National Grid-led research project on safe routing, design and construction of onshore high pressure dense phase CO2 pipelines); CO2 RISKMAN (DNV-led JIP to develop risk management guidance for CCS); and CO2 QUEST (impact of the quality of CO2 on transport and storage). The Energy Institute has also published guidelines in this area in conjunction with the UK Carbon Capture Association. Several new projects (including those in the EU) are currently being developed to continue the work in these areas. Others have also considered the mass storage of CO2 at production hubs and alternative means of transfer and transportation to sequestration sites. Most importantly, such research has identified the significance of establishing adequate equations of state for CO2 risk assessment, particularly at the triple point and/or where impurities are present. The toxic dose relationship of CO2 has also established the need to use a “cautious best estimate approach” when establishing concentration values with distance. This is due to the apparent steep change in the dose consequence relationship for CO2 exposure. Some of the papers in this special issue are as a result of the above projects, whilst others are a result of work which is going on internationally to prepare for the uptake of CCS. The papers cover a range of CCS safety issues, with the inter-connected themes being risk assessment and safety considerations in design. Many aspects of safe design are informed by risk assessment at varying levels of detail. Quantified risk assessment (QRA) can help prioritise safety issues and help inform, for example, pipeline routing. Relatively simple release rate, source term and consequence modelling is required for this purpose. More detailed modelling is appropriate for detailed design in those areas identified as responsible for high risk. Witlox et al. describes the validation of the PHAST consequence modelling software against a range of CO2 release experiments, including the BP and Shell experimental data made available to participants in the CO2 PIPETRANS project
2
Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1–2
(Although some of the references are to restricted reports, some data from the Shell experiments has now been published (Allason et al., 2012)). There follow three papers from the CO2 PipeHaz project. McGillivray et al. describe an event tree and methodology for QRA of CO2 pipelines. Lisbona et al. describe progress towards the simplified incorporation of topographical effects on dispersion of dense CO2 clouds within QRA. Martynov et al. describe the development of a detailed release rate model for CO2 pipelines, suitable for input to CFD near-field and far-field dispersion modelling. Continuing the theme of release rate modelling from CO2 systems, Benintendi presents a more simplified model which allows non-equilibrium effects to be accounted for in CO2 release calculations. Han et al. are concerned with modelling a jettisoning system for use in CO2 ship transportation and include new experimental data for model validation. The following two papers are concerned with physical properties and thermodynamic modelling for CO2 with low levels of impurities, such as would be transported and injected into storage within a CCS system. Physical properties are an essential input to any modelling, for risk assessment as well as design. De Guido et al. are concerned with thermodynamic modelling of the liquid/solid/vapour phase equilibrium as affected by impurities. This can have a significant effect on both design and release rate calculations. Zhao and Li also model the phase equilibrium, with particular attention to the region of transition between dense phase and supercritical properties, where the fluid density changes rapidly with thermodynamic conditions. The two final papers cover hazard identification and material of construction selection. Paltrinieri et al. present work following the iNTeg-Risk project and compare two hazard identification approaches which are designed to identify ‘atypical events’ which may not be readily identified as a result of the novelty of the technology. Yevtushenko et al. provide experimental data and recommendations for the selection of steels for the injection of CO2 into saline aquifers. CCS has been an active area of safety research in recent years, evidenced by the fact that the IChemE Frank Lees medal has been awarded for no less than three papers on CCS safety (Connolly and Cusco, 2007; Mahgerefteh et al., 2009; Wilday et al., 2011). HSE and HSL have been honoured to have provided at least one author of each of these papers.
The uptake of CCS appears to have been delayed as a result of global economic factors but nonetheless remains a political priority. This special issue presents a selection of papers which forms part of the developing science base to support the safe roll-out of CCS worldwide.
References Allason, D., Armstrong, K., Barnett, J., Cleaver, P., Halford, A., 2012. Experimental studies of the behaviour of pressurised releases of carbon dioxide. In: IChemE Symposium Series No. 158, pp. 142–152. Connolly, S., Cusco, L., 2007. Hazards from high pressure carbon dioxide releases during carbon dioxide sequestration processes. IChemE Symposium Series 153, 3–4, IChemE, Rugby (Full paper published on CD-ROM). HSE, 2010. Health and Safety in the New Energy Economy: Meeting the Challenge of Major Change, http://www.hse. gov.uk/eet/assets/pdf/new-energy-economy.pdf (accessed 13/11/13). IEA, 2013. Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage, http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/ name,39359,en.html (accessed 13/11/13). Mahgerefteh, H., Brown, S., Bilio, M., Fairweather, M., 2009. CO2 pipelines – material and safety considerations. In: Hazards XXI Symposium, 10–12 November. Shuter, D., Bilio, M., Wilday, J., Murray, L., Whitbread, R., 2011. Safety issues and research priorities for CCS systems and infrastructure. Energy Procedia 4, 2261–2268. Wilday, J., Paltrinieri, N., Farret, R., Hebrard, J., Breedveld, L., 2011. Addressing emerging risks using carbon capture and storage as an example. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 89, 463–471.
Guest Editor Jill Wilday (FIChemE, CEng) ∗ Major Hazards Unit, Health and Safety Laboratory, United Kingdom Guest Editor Mike Bilio (MRSC, CChem, CSci) Energy Division, Health and Safety Executive, United Kingdom ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 01298 218124. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Wilday) 0957-5820/$ – see front matter Crown Copyright © 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Institution of Chemical Engineers. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2013.11.007
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Process Safety and Environmental Protection journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psep
Editorial
Safety issues for carbon capture and storage
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is now recognised, and increasingly promoted, as part of a mix of solutions to the prevention or limitation of global warming. Massive deployment of carbon capture is expected to be required if it is to make an impact on climate change. The International Energy Authority (IEA) CCS Technology Roadmap (IEA, 2013) gives a series of goals culminating in the annual storage of over 7000 Mt CO2 worldwide by 2050. The safety of such CCS projects needs to adequately managed within the response to global warming while also managing the need to meet future energy demands. CCS needs to be integrated with power generation technologies and so it is necessary to establish the nature of the risks already presented by existing technologies, the potential risks of the of new technologies, and their interactions. The UK safety regulator, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), seeks to anticipate emerging issues that could have the potential to impact on health and safety from work activities in the future. HSE set up its Emerging Energy Technologies Programme (EETP) to evaluate potential risks from a range of such technologies including wider use of LNG, cleaner coal technologies, CCS and renewables (HSE, 2010). HSE has a dual role: both to safeguard workers and the public, and to help enable emerging technologies, including CCS. These roles are interlinked. Sound health and safety is crucial to secure public, investor and wider industrial/commercial confidence, which is required for successful uptake of a new technology. HSE has helped to identify possible safety issues that could delay or prevent uptake and to stimulate the industry to address them. In addition, any current gaps in safety regulation relating to the new technologies have been identified by the EETP and addressed accordingly. This was in recognition that a clarity in regulatory requirements was important for potential investors. For CCS, hazard identification (Connolly and Cusco, 2007) began with the first proposed UK CCS project, the joint venture between BP and Scottish and Southern Energy at Peterhead Power Station, which did not ultimately proceed. Further work included investigation of CCS technologies and mapping of gaps in knowledge, guidance and regulation (Shuter et al., 2011). Key knowledge gaps requiring research included the model development and experimental validation of source terms for CO2 releases (particularly from conditions that will cause solid CO2 to be produced); physical properties of CO2 mixtures such as would be produced and transported in CCS systems; and suitable materials for use in
CCS systems. The EETP developed a strategy for encouraging industry and collaborative research projects to address such issues and to develop guidance. This has included the establishment of several major research projects such as: MATTRAN (EPRSC funded project on materials for next generation CO2 transport systems); CO2 PipeHaz (EU project on quantitative hazard assessment for next generation CO2 pipelines); CO2 PIPETRANS Phase 2 (DNV-led JIP to produce dense phase CO2 release modelling validation data, and information on fracture arrest and corrosion); COOLTRANS (National Grid-led research project on safe routing, design and construction of onshore high pressure dense phase CO2 pipelines); CO2 RISKMAN (DNV-led JIP to develop risk management guidance for CCS); and CO2 QUEST (impact of the quality of CO2 on transport and storage). The Energy Institute has also published guidelines in this area in conjunction with the UK Carbon Capture Association. Several new projects (including those in the EU) are currently being developed to continue the work in these areas. Others have also considered the mass storage of CO2 at production hubs and alternative means of transfer and transportation to sequestration sites. Most importantly, such research has identified the significance of establishing adequate equations of state for CO2 risk assessment, particularly at the triple point and/or where impurities are present. The toxic dose relationship of CO2 has also established the need to use a “cautious best estimate approach” when establishing concentration values with distance. This is due to the apparent steep change in the dose consequence relationship for CO2 exposure. Some of the papers in this special issue are as a result of the above projects, whilst others are a result of work which is going on internationally to prepare for the uptake of CCS. The papers cover a range of CCS safety issues, with the inter-connected themes being risk assessment and safety considerations in design. Many aspects of safe design are informed by risk assessment at varying levels of detail. Quantified risk assessment (QRA) can help prioritise safety issues and help inform, for example, pipeline routing. Relatively simple release rate, source term and consequence modelling is required for this purpose. More detailed modelling is appropriate for detailed design in those areas identified as responsible for high risk. Witlox et al. describes the validation of the PHAST consequence modelling software against a range of CO2 release experiments, including the BP and Shell experimental data made available to participants in the CO2 PIPETRANS project
2
Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1–2
(Although some of the references are to restricted reports, some data from the Shell experiments has now been published (Allason et al., 2012)). There follow three papers from the CO2 PipeHaz project. McGillivray et al. describe an event tree and methodology for QRA of CO2 pipelines. Lisbona et al. describe progress towards the simplified incorporation of topographical effects on dispersion of dense CO2 clouds within QRA. Martynov et al. describe the development of a detailed release rate model for CO2 pipelines, suitable for input to CFD near-field and far-field dispersion modelling. Continuing the theme of release rate modelling from CO2 systems, Benintendi presents a more simplified model which allows non-equilibrium effects to be accounted for in CO2 release calculations. Han et al. are concerned with modelling a jettisoning system for use in CO2 ship transportation and include new experimental data for model validation. The following two papers are concerned with physical properties and thermodynamic modelling for CO2 with low levels of impurities, such as would be transported and injected into storage within a CCS system. Physical properties are an essential input to any modelling, for risk assessment as well as design. De Guido et al. are concerned with thermodynamic modelling of the liquid/solid/vapour phase equilibrium as affected by impurities. This can have a significant effect on both design and release rate calculations. Zhao and Li also model the phase equilibrium, with particular attention to the region of transition between dense phase and supercritical properties, where the fluid density changes rapidly with thermodynamic conditions. The two final papers cover hazard identification and material of construction selection. Paltrinieri et al. present work following the iNTeg-Risk project and compare two hazard identification approaches which are designed to identify ‘atypical events’ which may not be readily identified as a result of the novelty of the technology. Yevtushenko et al. provide experimental data and recommendations for the selection of steels for the injection of CO2 into saline aquifers. CCS has been an active area of safety research in recent years, evidenced by the fact that the IChemE Frank Lees medal has been awarded for no less than three papers on CCS safety (Connolly and Cusco, 2007; Mahgerefteh et al., 2009; Wilday et al., 2011). HSE and HSL have been honoured to have provided at least one author of each of these papers.
The uptake of CCS appears to have been delayed as a result of global economic factors but nonetheless remains a political priority. This special issue presents a selection of papers which forms part of the developing science base to support the safe roll-out of CCS worldwide.
References Allason, D., Armstrong, K., Barnett, J., Cleaver, P., Halford, A., 2012. Experimental studies of the behaviour of pressurised releases of carbon dioxide. In: IChemE Symposium Series No. 158, pp. 142–152. Connolly, S., Cusco, L., 2007. Hazards from high pressure carbon dioxide releases during carbon dioxide sequestration processes. IChemE Symposium Series 153, 3–4, IChemE, Rugby (Full paper published on CD-ROM). HSE, 2010. Health and Safety in the New Energy Economy: Meeting the Challenge of Major Change, http://www.hse. gov.uk/eet/assets/pdf/new-energy-economy.pdf (accessed 13/11/13). IEA, 2013. Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage, http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/ name,39359,en.html (accessed 13/11/13). Mahgerefteh, H., Brown, S., Bilio, M., Fairweather, M., 2009. CO2 pipelines – material and safety considerations. In: Hazards XXI Symposium, 10–12 November. Shuter, D., Bilio, M., Wilday, J., Murray, L., Whitbread, R., 2011. Safety issues and research priorities for CCS systems and infrastructure. Energy Procedia 4, 2261–2268. Wilday, J., Paltrinieri, N., Farret, R., Hebrard, J., Breedveld, L., 2011. Addressing emerging risks using carbon capture and storage as an example. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 89, 463–471.
Guest Editor Jill Wilday (FIChemE, CEng) ∗ Major Hazards Unit, Health and Safety Laboratory, United Kingdom Guest Editor Mike Bilio (MRSC, CChem, CSci) Energy Division, Health and Safety Executive, United Kingdom ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 01298 218124. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Wilday) 0957-5820/$ – see front matter Crown Copyright © 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Institution of Chemical Engineers. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2013.11.007