A cArbon cApture And storAge network for yorkshire And humber

Table 3.1 Definition of Tier emitter classifications
Figure 1.2 shows the location of the larger
emitters (over 1mtCO2/year) in the study
area. Large thermal power plants are
indicated by red squares and blue dots,
whilst the purple squares represent possible
future projects. Non-energy producers
of CO2 are shown in orange. Yellow dots
shown indicate potential export points;
both shown are Easington (northerly) and
Theddlethorpe (southerly). Although the
existing pipelines and gas export facilities
will not be utilised, it was assumed that it
would be easier to obtain planning consent
if the proposed pipelines crossed the coast
at the same point.
3.3 TIERED SOURCES
3.3.1 Division by emitter flow
Emitters can be ranked by their allowances
allocated under the EU-ETS. This allows
the consideration of an area in terms of not
only size of emitter but also the capability
and economic ability of an emitter to join
a transmission network. This methodology
was previously used in a project for the
International Energy Agency (IEA GHG)
[14] to test a network design and costing
programme. Table 3.1 shows the definitions
applying to the classification of an emitter by
size, and a detailed list of emitters can be
found in Appendix B.
Carbon Capture and Storage Network 9
Tier Classification Emitter Size Emitter Range Typical Emitter Types
(Generalisation) Tonnes CO2/year
0 Large +1 million Coal fired power station
Major hydrocarbon refinery
Major steel works
Large CCGT power station
1 Medium 50,000 to 1 million Chemical, glass, food processors,
large CHP & power stations
CCGT power station
2 Small 1,000 to 50,000 CHP units, hospitals,
Varied Industrial process
In considering a network and how emitters
can connect to it a number of factors
must be considered including the size of
the emitter, the capacity to capture and
transmit CO2, and the location of the site.
Small emitters such as hospitals will not
necessarily have the technical capability to
operate complex compression equipment
for example. By applying tiers to the
emitters in any area a simple but coarse
measure can be applied and some sources,
even whole tiers can be discounted.
It may be more appropriate for Tier 1 and
2 sources to be part of a suction system,
transmitting low pressure CO2 to a central
collection point such as larger capable
Tier 0 or Tier 1 sites.
A map of the location of the emitters in
the region is included in figure 3.1 and
Appendix A.
3.3.2 Tier 0 sources
Sources with volumes of CO2 greater than
1mt/year are categorized as Tier 0 sources.
Sources of this magnitude in this area are
power stations, refineries and steel works.
Carbon capture and storage is most
economical in Tier 0 sources due to large
amounts of CO2 available for capture, as well
as the availability of land at these sites for
extraction units. There are 12 such sources
for this study.
3.3.3 Tier 1 sources
Sources with volumes of CO2 ranging from
0.05mt/year to 1mt/year are categorized
as Tier 1. These include power and CHP
plants, chemical producers, cement & lime
works, large food & drink producers and
glassworks. Extraction and conditioning
of CO2 from most of these sources is
considered less economic and there is less
drive to reduce CO2 emissions below Best
Available Techniques (BAT).
3.3.4 Tier 2 sources
Those ranging from 1kt CO2/year to
0.5mt CO2/year are Tier 2 sources.
These smaller emitters include local small
power generators, services, hospitals, food
& drink manufacturers as well as small
chemical producers. The relatively small
amounts of CO2 produced at these sites
make them uneconomic or unpractical
for CCS, furthermore most are scattered
throughout the area, or located in densely
populated areas, making transportation
of the gas problematic.
3.3.5 proportion of emissions
Emissions taken from the EU-ETS have
resulted in the following proportions shown
in the chart below. The current bulk of the
emissions, 92%, are from Tier 0 sources
and only 8% from combined Tier 1 and
Tier 2 sources, figure 3.4a. Adding future
proposed programmes changes this
proportion to 95.4% for Tier 0, figure 3.4b.
This suggests that the trunk line could be
sized to accommodate the Tier 0 emitters,
as there is little impact from smaller emitters
joining the network.