Zep knowledge-sharing-report

839 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
839
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
239
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Zep knowledge-sharing-report

  1. 1. EU Demonstration Programme for CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS)
  2. 2. This document has been prepared on behalf of the Advisory Council of the European Technology Platform forZero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants. The information and views contained in this document are the collectiveview of the Advisory Council and not of individual members, or of the European Commission. Neither the AdvisoryCouncil, the European Commission, nor any person acting on their behalf, is responsible for the use that mightbe made of the information contained in this publication.Work to develop this document was facilitated by McKinsey & Company, who also provided fact-based input.The views in the report are solely those of ZEP and not those of McKinsey & Company.
  3. 3. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharingIntroductionThe European Union (EU) has made significant progress in advancingCO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) as a critical technology for combatingclimate change.Indeed, EU CO2 reduction targets are not achievable to accelerating deployment. In January 2009,without CCS. This was formally recognised by the the European Commission (EC) therefore askedEuropean Council in March 2007. ZEP to develop a more detailed proposal.Just two years later, Europe has established To this end, it has consulted experts both withina legal framework for the geological storage the Platform and the wider CCS community,of CO2 and public funding to support an EU as well as Member State governments. The resultdemonstration programme of 12 industrial-scale is a proposal that, while not prescriptive, offersCCS projects. The goal: to accelerate technology a clear and transparent framework for knowledgedevelopment, drive down costs, build public sharing that goes significantly beyond normalconfidence – and ensure CCS is commercially business practice. In fact, in the range and depthviable by 2020. Without such a programme, of knowledge recommended to be shared, it hascommercialisation will be severely delayed no precedent.– until at least 2030 in Europe. Covering the full CCS value chain, it describesThis reflects the recommendations of the European the main categories of knowledge, with specificTechnology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel recommendations on what should be shared3 –Power Plants (ZEP) – a broad coalition of stakeholders with whom and how – including practical solutionsunited in their support for CCS and its leading for disseminating knowledge as widely and rapidlyauthority in Europe. Members include European as possible. It also includes suggestions as to howutilities, petroleum companies, equipment suppliers, knowledge sharing may be practically set upnational geological surveys, academic institutions and organised.and environmental NGOs.1 In short, ZEP’s proposal describes how knowledgePublished in November 2008, ZEP’s Proposal2 for sharing within an EU demonstration programme canan EU Demonstration Programme for CCS included help overcome the final barriers to the deploymentrecommendations for knowledge sharing as key of CCS – not only in Europe, but beyond.1 Non-governmental organisations2 To download all ZEP publications, please access www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu/information3 Knowledge sharing only applies to those elements within a demonstration project which receive EU fundingIntroduction 1
  4. 4. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharingAdvisory Council Members of the European Technology Platformfor Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP)Eloy Alvarez, Union FenosaOlivier Appert, Institut Français du PétrolePietro Barbucci, ENELRudolph Blum, DONG Energy PowerNiels Peter Christensen, VattenfallMartin Cmiral, CEZCarmencita Constantin, ISPERicardo Cordoba, GE EnergyJózef Dubinski, CMIJürgen Eikhoff, RAG AktiengesellschaftJohn Michael Farley, Doosan Babcock Energy LtdBernhard Fischer, E.ON Energie AGRoberto Garosi, ANSALDO ENERGIA S.p.A.Georg Gasteiger, Austrian Energy & Environment AGFrançois Giger, EDF/DPITDavid Gye, Independent AdviserReinhardt Hassa, VattenfallFrederic Hauge, The Bellona FoundationMartha Heitzmann, Air LiquideGardiner Hill, BPEmmanuel Kakaras, Institute for Solid Fuels Technology & ApplicationsAlfons Kather, Hamburg University of TechnologySanjeev Kumar, WWF InternationalJohannes Lambertz, RWE Power AGHarry Lampenius, Foster Wheeler Power Group EuropeRuud Lubbers, Dutch National Taskforce on CCSJohn Ludden, British Geological SurveyNick Mabey, E3GLuc de Marliave, TOTAL SAJorge Martínez Jubitero, ENDESA GeneraciónNils Røkke, NTNU-SINTEFCharles Soothill, ALSTOM PowerMichael J. Suess, Siemens AGTrude Sundset, StatoilHydroGraeme Sweeney, Shell Intl Petroleum Co LtdKazimierz Szynol, PKE S.A.Antonio Valero, Fundación CIRCEDavid White, SchlumbergerTomasz Zadroga, PGE2 Advisory Council Members of ZEP
  5. 5. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharingContentsExecutive summary 41. Why knowledge sharing is key to accelerating the deployment of CCS 7 De-risk CCS and enable commercialisation by 2020 Accelerate the deployment of CCS worldwide Increase understanding and confidence in CCS2. Maximising sharing…without compromising competition 9 Respect commercial rights and foster innovation Share significantly beyond normal business practice Establish a common methodology3. Meeting the needs of stakeholders 11 Identify groups of stakeholders Identify categories of knowledge Match stakeholder needs with the ability to share4. Disseminating knowledge as widely and rapidly as possible 17 Ensure the speedy diffusion of IP worldwide Share know-how while maintaining the incentive to invest Employ a wide range of communication channels5. Running an efficient and transparent operation 20 Employ a neutral and independent body Create alignment through centralisation Ensure compliance with knowledge sharing agreementsTable of contents 3
  6. 6. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharingExecutive summaryKnowledge sharing is key to accelerating the deployment of CCS – in Europe and beyondAs a technology, CCS is now highly advanced, While ZEP’s proposal focuses on knowledgewith the potential to reduce global CO2 emissions sharing within the EU, it therefore has profoundby 9 to 16 billion tonnes a year by 2050 4. But it consequences for the global deployment of CCS –means moving rapidly from small- to large-scale both for developed and developing countries, withdemonstration as the final step to commercialisation whom knowledge may be shared on a reciprocaland deployment. The EU demonstration programme or other basis.will not only enable us to integrate and optimise CCStechnologies on an industrial scale, but “learn by But CCS cannot happen without the support of thedoing”5 as the fastest way to accelerate technology public, among whom awareness is extremely low.development – de-risking CCS, driving down costs By sharing a wide range of information, freely andand ensuring commercialisation by 2020. openly, people will be able to make up their own minds on the benefits and issues surrounding CCS.The availability of detailed results on performance This includes detailed findings on the long-termand reliability will, in turn, give companies greater integrity of CO2 storage – of particular interest toconfidence to invest, while at the same time communities living close to storage sites, but alsofeeding into research programmes to develop next- to environmental NGOs, public authorities andgeneration technologies. national governments.In terms of complexity, scope and commerciality, the EU CCS demonstration programmehas no precedentAs CCS technologies are now at an advanced The pre-commercial status of the demonstrationstage of development, the EU demonstration programme means that it must respect legislationprogramme qualifies as pre-commercial – with the designed to protect commercial rights and fosterfocus on deployment – where similar public-private competition. Without such protection, companiespartnerships have simply focused on Research & may not risk putting forward their best technology,Development. In fact, knowledge sharing on such or be willing to join the programme. In ordera scale – for a technology at this level of maturity to ensure that the best CCS technologies are– has no direct precedent, either in Europe identified and brought forward for wide-scaleor worldwide. The legal basis for the EU CCS deployment, ZEP’s proposal therefore focusesdemonstration programme is Article 175(1) on knowledge sharing that is significantly beyondof the EC Treaty (Environment); while knowledge normal business practice – while maintaining thesharing is a legal requirement under Article 10a(8) incentive to invest. It also follows a needs-basedof the revised Directive on the EU Emissions approach as not all stakeholders require all levelsTrading Scheme (EU ETS), 2009/29/EC. of knowledge.4 Estimates of the size of the annual contribution by 2050 range from 0.6 GT in the EU and 9 GT worldwide (International Energy Agency (IEA) Blue Map scenario from their report, “CO2 Capture and Storage – a Key Carbon Abatement Option”), to 1.7 GT in the EU and 16 GT worldwide (The Bellona Foundation, “A Model for the CO2 Capture Potential”, by Dr Aage Stangeland, published in the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Volume 1, Issue 4, August 2007)5 As recommended in the Strategic Deployment Document and Strategic Research Agenda published by ZEP, September 20064 Executive summary
  7. 7. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharingStakeholders are divided into five groups: iii) Project Management, including lessons learned in legislation; stakeholder management; planning;i) Contributors to the demonstration programme and within the consortium/project groupii) Non-contributors iv) Environmental Impact, including the effectivenessiii) Research Institutes of reducing CO2 emissions per unit of electricityiv) Government and the EU, and and other environmental impacts of CCSv) General Public and NGOs. in undisturbed operation v) Health and Safety, including significant incidentsKnowledge is also divided into five categories covering and near misses in disturbed operation;the full CO2 capture, transport and storage value chain: monitoring and resolution systems to track safety; health issues in undisturbed operation.i) Technical Set-up and Performance, including reliability; CO2 captured; performance; CO2 For each category, knowledge has been further purity; incremental fuel demand; electricity, heat divided into three levels of detail – Detailed, and cooling demand; key in-/outputs and design Medium and Aggregated – in order to provideii) Cost Levels, including capital and operating full transparency, while ensuring stakeholders costs; incremental costs per unit of performance only receive the information they need.Disseminating knowledge as widely and rapidly as possibleIn order to facilitate the uptake of all CO2 Capture and technologies utilised or developed duringand Storage technologies demonstrated or the demonstration programme. While registrationdeveloped within the demonstration programme, should be compulsory for participants, it shouldand which result from the EU-funded effort, all be open to all CCS technology providersapplicants6 should provide a Deployment Plan worldwide.as part of the bidding process, specifying theirstrategies and planning to introduce CCS technology With regard to performance and process data,into the key markets of China, South Africa, India, knowledge should be shared on the performanceIndonesia and Russia, and any other markets they and interaction of technology building blocks, theexpect to enter. performance of the plant overall and data resulting from actual operation of specific processes in a givenIf a participant fails to comply with the plan, the set of operating conditions. Defining the preciseCommission could then exercise Diffusion Rights level of data to be shared could then be establishedunder the grant agreement, in certain circumstances via a two-stage process:(see pages 17-18). These could include: contractualrequirements for the grant of a set number of 1. At the start of the selection process,licences with full compensation at market rates applicants would commit to sharing datato other companies within the EU. (NGO members at the building block and major componentof ZEP consider that contractual requirements for level (subject to the test of practicalitylicensing may need to take place at below market and protection of legitimate companyrates in some circumstances, for example, in Less interest in preventing reverse engineeringDeveloped Countries, where significant EU public of their technology)funding is involved in funding a CCS project.) 2. Once a short-list of projects has been made, they would then be asked to prepare a detailedA global CCS Patent Library should also schedule of knowledge sharing based on theirbe developed, covering all CCS patents project’s FEED 7 study.6 This includes all technology owners, host governments and their agencies involved in the demonstration programme, or with knowledge and Intellectual Property (IP) regarding overall process engineering and/or design, to be defined by a de minimis test7 Front End Engineering DesignExecutive summary 5
  8. 8. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharingIn addition, the following solutions are proposed: A wide range of communication channels should also be used, including a regularly updated website; Regular joint workshops allow ‘live’ interaction Visitors’ Centre for each demonstration project; between experts (for Contributors only) joint workshops; annual and milestone reports; and an observation seat for the EU on the supervisory engineering insights under a Non-Disclosure board of the demonstration programme and/or each Agreement with non-competing parties (for project. However, the proposal recommends only Contributors and Research Institutes only) the minimum action required by participants – it is anticipated that most will supplement this a standardised report (available to all). with additional activities.Knowledge sharing should be organised by an independent, centralised bodyWhile the recording of data and findings will be interpretation of guidelines and external positioning.carried out by participants, it should be assessed A centralised organisation can also synthesiseand coordinated by an organisation which is neutral, knowledge across projects, and ensure quality andcredible and independent. Such a body will not only consistency. Supervised by a board of stakeholders,provide maximum objectivity in the presentation its costs should be met by public funding to ensureof knowledge, but maximum alignment on the its independence.6 Executive summary
  9. 9. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharing1. Why knowledge sharing is key to accelerating the deployment of CCSAs a technology, CCS is now highly advanced, with the potentialto reduce global CO2 emissions on a massive scale – between 9and 16 billion tonnes a year by 2050 (see footnote 4).This includes not only the power sector, but a wide costs, as instead of being able to apply it torange of other CO2 -intensive industries as well. the current pipeline of coal plants, a retrofit would be required, increasing the cost ofBut it means moving rapidly from small- to large-scale achieving the same emissions reduction.demonstration as the final step to commercialisation In Europe alone, it is estimated it will costand deployment. Any delay could not only lead 40%8 more to achieve CO2 reduction targetsto unnecessary CO 2 emissions but additional without CCS.De-risk CCS and enable commercialisation by 2020Experts within ZEP and the wider CCS community will, in turn, give companies greater confidencehave already identified the functional, operational to invest, while at the same time feeding intoand technical specifications for the technologies research programmes to develop next-generationthat require integration and optimisation across the technologies.CCS value chain – known as “Technology Blocks”.9 The inclusion of a broad range of suppliersThe EU demonstration programme will not and technologies will ensure fair competition,only enable us to achieve this on an industrial but even those not participating in the programmescale, but “learn by doing” as the fastest way will have access to a high degree of knowledgeto accelerate technology development – – significantly beyond the minimum legalde-risking CCS, driving down costs and ensuring requirement, e.g. to obtain permits. This can becommercialisation by 2020. The availability of shared by the programme as a whole, or by groupsdetailed results on performance and reliability of companies running an individual project.Accelerate the deployment of CCS worldwideClimate change is a global problem and since both non-EEA10 and developing countries,a large proportion of CO2 emissions in the future with whom knowledge may be shared onwill come from developing countries, it is essential a reciprocal or other basis. This will not onlythat they, too, implement CCS as rapidly as possible. help accelerate the global deployment of CCS,While ZEP’s proposal focuses on knowledge but boost European industry and promotesharing within the EU, it therefore also includes technology leadership.8 Impact Assessment study on the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide, published by the European Commission, 20089 A full presentation on Technology Blocks can be found at www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu/information10 European Economic AreaWhy knowledge sharing is key to accelerating the deployment of CCS 7
  10. 10. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharingIncrease understanding and confidence in CCSCO2 capture is already practised on a small scale, for monitoring CO2 and tracking its movementwhile the technology for permanent CO2 storage in the reservoir.is almost identical to that used by the oil and gasindustry for decades – to store natural gas or for Knowledge sharing on CO2 storage will thereforeenhanced oil recovery (EOR). In fact, it uses the same play a vital role in ensuring that the first wave ofnatural trapping mechanisms which have already demonstration projects on depleted oil and gaskept huge volumes of oil, gas and CO2 underground fields and, in particular, deep saline aquifers informfor millions of years. CO2 transportation is also future permitting decisions on storage. All storagewell understood: it has been transported by ship activities should be fully transparent and all storageregionally for over 17 years, while a 5,000 km technologies monitored in accordance with theonshore pipeline network for EOR has been EC Directive on Geological Storage of CO2.operating in the US for over 30 years. This aspect of the demonstration programme’sNevertheless, although small-scale CO2 storage knowledge sharing should be supervised byhas been taking place successfully for over 12 years, an independent, non-commercial organisationawareness is extremely low. By undertaking large- and include the 30-year period following transferscale projects in a variety of geographical and of responsibility, as referenced in the Directive.geological settings, we will not only gain experience Such verification could lead to more flexible regulation,from a full range of storage options, but build public but may require the organisation to share proprietaryconfidence, as it is seen that the technology is both data. In such cases, ensuring confidentiality againstsafe and reliable. fraudulent access would be mandatory and require a Non-Disclosure Agreement to be signed betweenIn this demonstration and consolidation phase, the organisation and the technology owner.knowledge sharing will enable any remainingcapability gaps to be closed and storage procedures By sharing a wide range of information, freelyoptimised – establishing workflows, best practices and openly, people can then make up their ownand industry standards for a full range of storage minds on the benefits and issues surrounding CCS.options. This includes identifying, selecting This includes detailed findings on the long-termand characterising a storage site; modelling the integrity of CO2 storage – of particular intereststorage reservoir and assessing storage capacity; to communities living close to storage sites,investigating CO2 thermodynamics; proving CO2 but also to environmental NGOs, publictrapping mechanisms; and enhancing tools authorities and national governments.8 Why knowledge sharing is key to accelerating the deployment of CCS
  11. 11. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharing2. Maximising sharing... without compromising competitionAs CCS technologies are now at an advanced stage of development,the EU demonstration programme qualifies as pre-commercial –with a focus on deployment – where other public-private partnershipshave simply focused on Research & Development (R&D).In fact, knowledge sharing on such a scale – Nevertheless, the proposal has been cross-checkedfor a technology at this level of maturity – has no with a number of comparable programmes12 todirect precedent, either in Europe or worldwide. ensure all stakeholders, topics and levels of sharingNevertheless, the demonstration projects are have been covered – and more – together with“first of their kind and incur costs for the learning effective and proven methodologies. There isexperiences they are designed to deliver”11 also a strong legal precedent for knowledgeat a time when commercial demand does not sharing that balances the need to maintainyet exist – hence the need for public funding. competition with the public interest, e.g. REACH chemicals legislation.Certainly, no public-private partnership has sharedknowledge on such a comprehensive range of The legal basis for the establishmenttopics – and to such a high level of detail – with such of the EU CCS demonstration programmea broad range of stakeholders, as recommended is Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty (Environment),in this proposal. Many such initiatives are also while knowledge sharing is a legal requirementself-organising, with quality checks carried out under Article 10a(8) of the revised Directiveby the participants themselves, as opposed on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS),to an independent body recommended by ZEP. 2009/29/EC.Respect commercial rights and foster innovationThe pre-commercial status of the demonstration This, in turn, further enhances innovation by encouragingprogramme means that it must respect the development of alternative solutions to thoselegislation designed to protect commercial protected by others. Without such protection, thererights and foster innovation. Indeed, this is is a risk that companies who have invested heavily inessential to encourage investment and ensure CCS – and already acquired commercially exploitablethe continued disclosure of technological knowledge – may not risk putting forward their bestbreakthroughs through the patent system. technology, or be willing to join the programme.Share significantly beyond normal business practiceIt is vital that the best CCS technologies are identified disseminated as quickly and widely as possible –and brought forward for wide-scale deployment. within both developed and developing countries. ZEPIt is equally important that knowledge is also recognises that the value of existing knowledge11 “CCS: Assessing the Economics” by McKinsey & Company, published September 200812 For example, ENCAP (Enhanced Capture of CO2), part of the EU Sixth Framework Programme on R&D; TCM (European CO2 Technology Centre Mongstad); RFCS (Research Fund for Coal and Steel); GCEP (Global Climate and Energy Project); EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute); IMEC (Europe’s largest independent research centre in nano-electronics and nano-technology); and FutureGen AllianceMaximising sharing…without compromising competition 9
  12. 12. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharingwill increase as a result of the demonstration normal business practice. It also includes practicalprogramme, as it moves closer to commercialisation. solutions for sharing IP and know-how (see pages 17-19). Some knowledge, of course, it is simplyThe proposal therefore focuses on knowledge not feasible to share, e.g. tacit knowledge; or itssharing that is significantly above the minimum legal generation may be prohibitively expensive, e.g.requirement under existing legislation and beyond very frequent 4D seismic monitoring.Establish a common methodologyAs the EU demonstration programme will include However, the value of many parameters will dependa wide range of CO2 capture, transport and storage on the characteristics of each individual projecttechnologies, it is important that knowledge is which, despite a common methodology, cannot beevaluated via a common methodology. A precise made comparable. Participants should thereforedefinition of the parameters to be shared – including provide a general project description for each stepstandardised formats – should be determined by in the CCS value chain, including characteristicsa centralised body (see page 20), but existing which impact comparability, so that knowledgeindustry standards provide a good basis. can be placed in context (Exhibit 1).Exhibit 1: Participants should provide a general project description for each step in the CCS value chain,specifying which characteristics impact comparability Capture Transport Storage Technology Capture technology: Transport type: Storage type: e-combustion pe ship Depleted oi ga field (t gasifie type) On offs e deep saline aquife st-combustio (dif amin option mmonia) Compression technology Monitoring and verification Oxy-fuel (pulv fuel F) (e.g. 4D seismic) Use of booster: yes/no fuel be Fuel type Retrofit or new-build If retrofit: plant age and efficiency Capacity Capacity power plant Capacity of Amount of CO2 stored Capacity capture unit transportation system per year Total expected storage capacity Depth of storage Location Exact location Transport trajectory Storage location Type of complexity Proximity of storage encountered (e.g. natural to residential/industrial/ reserves, rivers, big towns) nature areas Participants All participants and functions in the project, across the CCS value chain* Not all parameters can be made comparable, e.g. costs cannot be normalised for a ‘standard’ plant as exact cost levels are not known10 Maximising sharing…without compromising competition
  13. 13. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharing3. Meeting the needs of stakeholdersIn order to ensure that all knowledge required by stakeholdersis shared, ZEP’s proposal follows a needs-based approach asnot all stakeholders require all levels of knowledge.Identify groups of stakeholdersStakeholders have been divided into five groups: Non-contributors; Research Institutes; GovernmentContributors to the demonstration programme; and the EU; and General Public/NGOs (Exhibit 2).Exhibit 2: There are five groups of stakeholders with whom knowledge should be shared Contributors Participants contributing to knowledge Utility building power plant with CCS to Demo development in Demo Programme Equipment manufacturer supplying technology Programme With direct role in project Oil company storing CO2 Withou direct role in projec (see Exhibi fo more details) CCS network in the US Non-contibutors Companies that do not contribute to the Companies without existing knowledge on Demo Programme, but have a commercial CCS to share (or not willing to share with the stake in CCS Demo Programme) Future potential players Research Research Institutes which can contribute Research Institutes currently active in CCS Institutes to building further knowledge on CCS (not Research Institutes with a future interest necessarily involved in the Demo Programme) in CCS (and relevant background knowledge so they can contribute relevant knowledge) Government/EU Paying and non-paying govenments European Commission at different levels: European, national, National Parliament regional/local Municipalities, local political parties General Public/ Public/NGOs highly interested in Environmental NGOs NGOs Demo Programme Communities living close to capture or storage Public directly impacted by Demo Programme site, or CO2 transportation General public with average interest in CCS Local interest groupsThe key difference between Contributors and interactive expert peer group workshops and detailedNon-contributors lies in the way in which knowledge engineering insights (see page 18), Non-contributorsis shared – where Contributors have access to only have access to a standardised report.Meeting the needs of stakeholders 11
  14. 14. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharingContributors to the demonstration programme demonstration programme and be able to shareare further defined in Exhibit 3. It is essential that knowledge on a reciprocal basis with the EU andthey include non-participants from both developed developed countries; or on an asymmetric basisand developing countries in order to accelerate with developing countries, provided they recognisethe global deployment of CCS. To be eligible, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) or similar standardsthey must have comparable CCS projects or to those of the EU.Exhibit 3: Contributors to the EU CCS demonstration programme may include non-participants from bothdeveloped and developing countries who have comparable CCS projects or demonstration programme Utilities, gas transport companies, oil majors Relevant companies Suppliers who contribute in Demo Programme** (parts of) CCS technology Suppliers who indirectly benefit from public funding Contributors* Entities involved in a to Demo Programme comparable CCS demo project or programme Non-participants who are and able to share in * Includes EU, non-EU and developing countries involved in a comparable power industry ** Excludes suppliers of standard, CCS demo project or non-CCS related parts programme and can Entities involved in part *** E.g. if a steel mill is part of the Demo of the value chain in a Programme, other steel companies share knowledge on a can be treated as Contributors reciprocal or other basis comparable CCS demo if they contribute relevant project or programme and knowledge reciprocally able to share in another industry which is mirrored in the Demo Programme***Identify categories of knowledgeKnowledge can be divided into five categories, Performance, Cost Levels, Project Management,covering the full CO2 capture, transport and Environmental Impact, and Health and Safetystorage chain – Technical Set-up and (Exhibit 4).Exhibit 4: Knowledge sharing within the EU CCS demonstration programme should cover a comprehensiverange of issues for the five main knowledge categories Technical Set-up Reliability and Performance CO2 captured Performance at different levels CO2 purity Incremental fuel demand; electricity, heat and cooling demand Key in- and outputs, and design Questions for future R&D Cost Levels Capital and operating costs for CCS per step in the value chain Incremental costs per unit of performance (tonne of CO2 abated, clean MWh produced) Project Management Lessons learned in: Legislation/permitting akeholde management including interactio with Government an authorities anning Consortium/project group12 Environmental Impact Effectiveness: reduction in CO2 emissions per unit of electricity needs of stakeholders Meeting the Other environmental impacts of CCS in undisturbed operation Health and Safety Significant incidents and near misses occurred (disturbed operation)
  15. 15. CO2 purity Incremental fuel demand; electricity, heat and cooling demand Key in- and outputs, and design Questions for future R&DMaximising the benefits of knowledge sharing Cost Levels Capital and operating costs for CCS per step in the value chain Incremental costs per unit of performance (tonne of CO2 abated, clean MWh produced) Project Management Lessons learned in: Legislation/permitting akeholde management including interactio with Government an authorities anning Consortium/project group Environmental Impact Effectiveness: reduction in CO2 emissions per unit of electricity Other environmental impacts of CCS in undisturbed operation Health and Safety Significant incidents and near misses occurred (disturbed operation) Monitoring and resolution systems to track safety Health issues from CCS in undisturbed operationFor each category, knowledge has then been to provide full transparency, while ensuringfurther divided into three levels of detail: Detailed, stakeholders receive only the informationMedium and Aggregated (Exhibits 5–9) in order they need.Exhibit 5: Detailed, Medium and Aggregated levels of knowledge sharing for Technical Set-up and Performance Detailed Medium Aggregated Parameters per technology Overall performance – split by How well does each building block for capture, capture, transport and storage technology perform? transport and storage erag perf time liability/ ailability of Example (Capture) apture an ssor only) hours operated Air Separation Unit (ASU) erag an ma flo rates 2 ptured Input (transport an storag only) in fuel demand Output erag ailability time Design an rang pe step in th (i pture, What are the key areas of operating onditions transpor an storag separatel an for future research? fo entire Perf an data start-up/shut-down ondition an losses ll load ptur rate apture only) rt load operation perf e Example (Storage) apture only) Design storag terisation Transien perf of eral system: Perf pressure start-up an shut-dow time an losses distribution time an tensio demand (per unit of output) of th 2 io rate Heat demand (per unit of output) (total pe well) demand (per unit of output) Transien perf stabilisation Question fo further re on of plum beha from dynami to ptur transpor an storage teady state; ents pipe or well failur earthquake Source: ZEPIn the Detailed level, the design and range in any of the CO2 capture or storage facilities.of operating conditions are governed by IPR; Knowledge should be shared on the performancewhile the aim is maximum knowledge sharing, and interaction of technology building blocks,performance and process data should not be shared the performance of the plant overall and datawhich would allow reverse engineering of the know- resulting from actual operation of specifichow, technology, products or processes involved processes in a given set of operating conditions.Meeting the needs of stakeholders 13
  16. 16. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharingExhibit 6: Detailed, Medium and Aggregated levels of knowledge sharing for Cost Levels Detailed Medium Aggregated Further details on costs are not Investment costs* What is th incrementa cost pe tonn required by stakeholders (costs Capture of CO2 avoided an pe MW of clea per step of the value chain give electricit produced? Transport sufficient information to take What is th tota cost pe MW of clea Storage decisions; for specific investment electricit produced relative to plans, quotations may be obtained) Operating cost* referenc plan with that technology?** Capture What ar th investment cost Any sharing of cost information pe demo project? Transport will also be subject to applicable What ar th operating cost Storage pe demo project? competition laws Performance knowledge Ho much ar thes cost quotation du to specific Demo ogramme * For all cost infomation, a split needs to be required to calculate costs equirements made between costs any CCS project would per tonne CO2 /MWh as detailed in (e.g higher frequenc monitoring) incur and additional costs due to specific Environmenta impact Demo Programme requirements (abatement mediu level) ** Information on incremental cost per MWh of clean electricity produced per plant could Technica performanc potentially be included confidentially in (electricity produced ggregate level) a tender Source: ZEPSharing Detailed Cost Levels is not necessary, while for specific investment plans, quotations mayas costs per step of the CCS value chain provide be obtained. Any sharing of cost information willsufficient information to take investment decisions, also be subject to applicable competition laws.Exhibit 7: Detailed and Aggregated levels of knowledge sharing for Project Management Detailed Aggregated Legislation and permitting What are the key lessons and pitfalls Fact on application proces steps, role an time-frame encountered in: issues an learnings, including implication fo th projec Legislation an permitting (e.g late start, differen size/design) Public an NG stakeholde management Planning Public and NGOs: stakeholder identification and communication process Government interaction Approach categories identified, mean used roles Organisation of consortium/project group Timing of sharin an involvement issues an learnings, including resolution applied to solv issues Planning milestone an interdependencies issues (e.g dela du to unexpected interdependencies) Recove planning in case of dela General solution to educ planning an cutio time Interaction with govenments and authorities Main bodie involved an roles Approach used issues encountered an resolution Consortium/project group Partie involved in th project Role pe part Governance model fo th project Risk allocation Role of overnment agencies/regulators full detail an text of agreements Networ of projec ownerships, partnerships, contract an relationships List of al main contracts, agreements an parties, with erview of role an list of advisers engaged Describ financing rrangements an (qualitativel risk allocation is matrix) Source: ZEPAll knowledge may be shared, but the Medium level is not applicable.14 Meeting the needs of stakeholders
  17. 17. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharingExhibit 8: Detailed, Medium and Aggregated levels of knowledge sharing for Environmental Impact Detailed Medium Aggregated Drivers of CO2 emitted with CCS Tonnes of CO2 emitted per GWh What is th eduction in tonnes of 2 emission pe of electricit tricit demand with an withou S In referenc case withou S produced vi S? Utilisation with an withou S By plan with S What ar th other el type used an environmenta effects? equivalent content 2 Mass balance capture (other than fuel) 2 captur rate Soli plot si equired Plot size required Liquid: captur transpor an storage Wate consumptio an usag increase pe MW of electricit produced Solvent and chemical use Solven an hemical us increase Type of solvents an hemical used pe MW of electricit produced step her used an goal of use Gas: vironmental/health characteristic Remainin emission 2 of solvents/chemical used solvents pe MWh Technical losses an leakag in Emissions (other than CO2) transpor in egular/undisturbe operation (e.g fo valves) Amount an compositio of emis including purity of 2 stream Environmental impact of storage 2 migration to differen geological layers an resultin soil acidit change and/or contaminatio of freshwate * Reference case which is comparable (if applicable) to the CCS demo project with respect Impact on geolog (e.g reactio with to capacity, combustion/electricity rock an ca rock integrit due to generation technology and fuel type pressure levels Evolutio in soil ga Source: ZEP measurements an atmospheri oncentrations at multiple locationsDetailed and Medium levels of knowledge higher than the minimum legal requirement,sharing for Environmental Impact are significantly e.g. to obtain permits.Exhibit 9: Detailed, Medium and Aggregated levels of knowledge sharing for Health and Safety Detailed Medium Aggregated Monitoring system (prevention) Safety incidents in What has been the number Equipment: numbe an si disturbed operation of incidents per hour operated*? monitoring well IT systems used; Location monitoring instrumentation in capture Output plant/transpor system Impact Personnel: numbe an leve Caus of incident of people employed Resolution measures taken Procedures: variables tracke frequency of tracking limits at whic action is taken; learnings eneral safety procedures an protocol fo application rification an Health issues in regular/ calibration of monitoring technology undisturbed operation Issue resolution system Overview of operational health issues (e.g hazardou substances or situations, Equipment: description including hemical used of safety equipment se also Exhibi Personnel: numbe an leve of safety Description of potentia impact pe issue personnel; jo descriptions Procedures in case of Near misses * Exact metric used for time operated will differ leakages/other issues Parameters fo safety incidents per step in the value chain, e.g. for capture, Practical learnings from incidents this could be full-load operation (e.g idea to improve procedures Measures taken for future prevention Source: ZEPDetailed and Medium levels of knowledge significantly higher than the minimum legalsharing for Health and Safety are requirement.Meeting the needs of stakeholders 15
  18. 18. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharingMatch stakeholder needs with the ability to shareAn analysis of stakeholder needs shows that Set-up and Performance (Exhibit 10) whichall desired knowledge can be shared, except is either governed by IP Rights or subjectfor some Detailed information on Technical to competitive constraints.Exhibit 10: An analysis of stakeholder needs shows that all desired knowledge can be shared, exceptfor some detailed information on Technical Set-up and Performance which is either subject to IP Rightsor competitive constraints Technical Set-up Project Environmental Health and Performance Cost Levels Management Impact and Safety Contributors to Demo Programme Non- contributors Research Institutes Government/EU General Public/ NGOs Levels of detail needed Not relevant and subject to applicable competition laws Detailed Medium Aggregated Subject to IP Rights or competitive constraints Participant able to share16 Meeting the needs of stakeholders
  19. 19. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharing4. Disseminating knowledge as widely and rapidly as possibleAs the EU demonstration programme is designed to acceleratethe deployment of CCS, this specifically includes identifyingthe best technologies to go forward.However, some Detailed knowledge on Technical can decide whether to provide access to theSet-up and Performance is subject to IP Rights or application via licence, and on what terms, incompetitive constraints: order to protect competitive edge (applies to design and range of operating conditions) Intellectual Property (IP): knowledge developed Know-how: knowledge which has competitive during the demonstration programme is strongly value, but which is not IP protectable. As it cannot rooted in existing IP and therefore protected by be protected by patent, and no fee for sharing IP Rights and the patent system. This means that can be charged, sharing may hamper competition although the knowledge is transparent, IP owners (applies to performance and process data).Ensure the speedy diffusion of IP worldwidea) Commit to a Deployment Plan For countries where there are no plans for marketAll applicants (see footnote 6) should provide entry, terms should be proposed for full commerciala Deployment Plan for the CCS technologies licensing and for segmented market agreementsthey intend to develop in the EU demonstration which limit exports back to OECD (and potentiallyprogramme. This should become part of the project other) markets. There should be an ongoing dialoguebidding process and the initial grant agreement between the EU and the demonstration projectbetween the participants and the EC, and be developers about the shaping and development ofenforceable. It should be handled confidentially key markets and the results of this should be factoredbetween the project and the Commission. into the evolution of the Deployment Plan.Deployment Plans should specify companies’ Diffusion Rights (analogous to US March-in Rights)strategies and planning (or lack of intention) to should be specified in the grant agreement tointroduce CCS technology into the key markets of ensure that licensing of all CO2 Capture and StorageChina, South Africa, India, Indonesia and Russia, and technologies demonstrated or developed withinany other markets they expect to enter. Plans should the demonstration programme, and which resultset an expectation that a commercial offer (market from the EU-funded effort, is facilitated in certainentry or licence availability) would be available in circumstances.14 Such circumstances include failurea reasonable period after that commercial offer to comply with the Deployment Plan within ais introduced into OECD13 markets, pending the specified reasonable period, without reasonableevolution of the demonstration programme, justification, or other failure to deploy andthe technology and the markets. commercialise a technology.13 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development14 The relevant circumstances, procedure, scope of EC commitment to secure third country IPR protection and the nature of the licence/ licensing terms are to be defined and specified in advanceDisseminating knowledge as widely and rapidly as possible 17
  20. 20. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharingThe Diffusion Rights can only be exercised in certain programme, in some circumstances it would becircumstances and in accordance with a process appropriate to provide licences at below marketto be specified in advance: rates in Less Developed Countries. Below market rates would be appropriate where re-export of the technology to the OECD is restricted and a reasonable period in which to execute its where significant European public financing is Deployment Plan. It would have to be clear that involved in constructing a CCS project in a Less the company had either not complied with its Developed Country.) plan (or not developed one). The Commission should commit to assessing the country or a third party to license the relevant adequacy of IPR protection and enforcement in the technology held by a participant in the EU third country jurisdiction and, if necessary, propose demonstration programme. The licence granted will and implement means by which the EU could actively only be valid for the country of the requested party. try to secure IPR enforcement in the third country through, inter alia, bilateral government agreements, need for the technology/licence, appropriate capacity building and/or assistance to EU SMEs.15 conditions for its deployment and evidence from The licensee would also need to have committed that third country or party that the participant was to and demonstrated a track record of responsibility unreasonably refusing to license the technology. for respecting IP.(NGO members of ZEP consider that the rationale for b) Build a global CCS Patent Librarypublic funding of the EU demonstration programme An open CCS Patent Library should also berequires that Diffusion Rights are applied to all CO2 developed, covering both CCS equipment usedCapture and Storage technologies which are part in the demonstration projects and any subsequentof the demonstration programme in order that the patents covering innovation developed as a result ofrights apply to a fully viable technology which can the demonstration programme. Companies shouldbe deployed in a developing country.) also register the licensing terms (if any) under which they would be prepared to share the technology.Diffusion Rights could include: contractualrequirements for the grant of a set number of Patent registration would also be compulsory forlicences with full compensation at market rates any Research Institute involved in knowledge sharingawarded to other companies within the EU. (NGO within the demonstration programme, but optionalmembers of ZEP consider that given the significant registration should be open to all CCS technologypublic funding being provided to the demonstration providers worldwide.Share know-how while maintaining the incentive to investThere are several possible solutions for sharing technology without duplicating the know-howknow-how, for example: (for Contributors only) c) Research Institutes16 – both EU and non-EU – maya) Regular joint workshops/site visits etc may also request access to any detailed technical set- be held over the course of the programme up and performance knowledge via the centralised to allow ‘live’ interaction between experts body. If the request is not overly burdensome or (for Contributors only) trivial, and the Research Institute can demonstrateb) Technology owners may share more detailed that it can be trusted and add to the knowledge engineering insights under a Non-Disclosure provided, it may be shared under a Non-Disclosure Agreement with non-competing parties, Agreement (NDA) between the Research allowing companies to improve their own Institute and relevant participants.15 Small and Medium Enterprises16 If a Research Institute is contributing directly to a demonstration project, it will likely form part of the consortium or be bound by the equivalent of a Consortium Agreement, in which case access to knowledge would be shared on an equal basis to that of the other members18 Disseminating knowledge as widely and rapidly as possible
  21. 21. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharing The credibility of the Research Institute should to the test of practicality and the protection of be determined by a standard of substantive legitimate company interest in order to prevent CCS research capability, non-profit purpose the reverse engineering of their technology. and commitment to placing all results in the Process data to be shared includes start-up public domain (subject to the NDA). The and shut-down performance data, data on centralised body (or the Commission) could performance at different loads/pressure and help in the screening of applicants and facilitate data on the optimised steady state. This should agreements, but the final decision lies with be presented in a standard format by all projects. the technology owner.d) All Contributors are required to complete of projects, applicants would then prepare a a standardised report (available to all). detailed schedule of performance data sharing (data, format, frequency of reporting) basedDefining the precise level of data to be shared could on their project’s FEED study process, thusbe established via a two-stage process: minimising the additional analytical costs and time involved. The Commission would then be able to evaluate the adequacy of the proposal (‘ex ante’), applicants would commit to sharing and request additional data and detail, as performance and process data at the technology required. This should form part of the standard block and major component level, subject process of bid refinement for each project.Employ a wide range of communication channelsReaching a wide range of stakeholders requires access to information on the demonstrationan equally wide range of communication channels. project, with particular emphasis on monitoring/However, the recommendations below represent safety information etc.the minimum action required by participants. Asa key objective is to make knowledge accessible Observation seatto as many stakeholders as possible, it is anticipated An observation seat for the EU should be createdthat most companies will supplement this with on the supervisory board of the demonstrationadditional activities. programme and/or each project, giving access to the same level of information as is sharedWebsite with government.The EU demonstration programme should createand run a regularly updated website, including Workshopsinformation, reports and press releases etc. This Joint workshops/expert meetings involvingshould have a multi-layered presentation, so that Contributors should take place regularly, includingpeople can access the most basic or detailed focused expert meetings in sub-groups.explanation, according to need. It also providesthe opportunity to answer any possible questions/ Reportsconcerns – whether the reader is a journalist, An annual report should be provided onNGO, policymaker or member of the public. progress and learnings on all knowledge categories for each demonstration project,Visitors’ Centre with immediate reporting on all major events,Every project should host a Visitors’ Centre, covering including milestones (particularly duringthe full CCS value chain. This will provide continuous the building phase).Disseminating knowledge as widely and rapidly as possible 19
  22. 22. Maximising the benefits of knowledge sharing5. Running an efficient and transparent operationWhile the recording of data and findings will be carried out byparticipants, it is important that this be assessed and coordinatedby an organisation which is neutral, credible and fully independent.Employ a neutral and independent bodySuch a body will provide maximum objectivity andcredibility in the presentation of knowledge to all stake-holder groups. It will also ensure maximum alignment, large volumes of datanot only on the interpretation of definitions and guidelines,but external positioning for the programme as a wholetowards, for example, the press. Criteria to be satisfiedby this organisation therefore include: and the public.Create alignment through centralisationA centralised organisation will also be able tosynthesise knowledge across projects, capture joint – Make communicable products (e.g. reports),learnings and build expertise. Its responsibilities building on the standardised inputshould include: – Develop and propose joint definitions and methodological guidelines – Check whether information is consistent with – Execute administrative tasks, the methodological guidelines (and as agreed e.g. distribute reports with the grant giver) and liaise with the data – Organise meetings/workshops, provider in case of non-consistency. in-house visits etc. – Be the primary entry point Supervised by a board of stakeholders, for requests for data, questions, its costs should be met by public funding press contacts etc. to ensure its independence.Ensure compliance with knowledge sharing agreementsIt is equally important to ensure all relevant parties standard, non-CCS-related parts. If the knowledgeare bound to knowledge sharing, regardless of sharing agreements are violated, varying degreesthe precise financing arrangements. This could be of action should then be taken, escalating throughensured by drafting an attachment to the contract that the chain of contracts to the utility or grant giver:suppliers sign with utilities or project owners whichbinds the signatory to knowledge sharing agreements. as a first warningThis could apply to all suppliers who contribute toCCS technology, or those who indirectly benefit from of the execution of claw-back optionspublic funding through the increased development (depending on the funding structure)of their product. It therefore excludes suppliers of20 Running an efficient and transparent operation
  23. 23. October 2009info@zero-emissionplatform.euwww.zeroemissionsplatform.eu

×