The following interview with Olav Falk-Pedersen, Business Development Manager at Technology Centre Mongstad, was conducted by ExchangeMonitor Publisher Ed Helminiski.
Olav, there are a lot of changes going on at TCM. What’s the status now and what do you see as the number one priority?
Let me first just briefly go over what we have been doing since we started off. Our first effort was at our amine plant and we tested out a solvent, an amine process from Aker Solutions as a part of their work to get the technology qualification for the full-scale Mongstad. They performed various successful tests at TCM . According to Aker, they are now ready for commercialization of this technology, including process guarantees and so on.
Was any of the data from the tests useful in the discussion of amine emissions in your government?
At the plant we measured what is emitted, worked on the atmospheric chemistry and also what happens when any pollutants hit the ground. So basically we have a toolbox with all the needed knowledge in that toolbox. As a result, we published a large number of reports and papers on the amine emissions which are easily available on our website.
Have the results from your analysis ameliorated the concern over amine emissions that was an issue a year or two ago?
Yes. As a result of our tests, which were developed in a very conservative way, our concern is drastically reduced. We have had no problem with operating our plant within the permits set by the regulatory agency. The amine plant operation here at TCM has been a very important learning experience for the state pollution control authorities and others The data collected has been requested from other test centers. So definitely yes, it has been a positive part of the discussions on the technology. We now understand more of what is going on.
This will also be a very important data for the U.S. or Canada or Europe where they also have a more complex composition of the atmosphere. You know here at TCM, it is a remote location with a fairly easy chemistry in the atmosphere. So our results will be important for all the people working with this kind of technology development and projects.
Has the operation or future direction of TCM changed since the cancellation of the full-scale carbon capture project at the gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) power station on the site of the Mongstad refinery?
Basically, our operations were not and will not be affected by the cancellation of the full-scale project. TCM is in full operation. We are operating both an amine plant and the chilled ammonia plant and a small amine mobile test unit from Aker Solutions. We just finalized a test with monoethanolamine and it was very successful. The mass balance is very good, with an accuracy of typically 2 to 3 percent. We will publish all this information shortly in scientific papers. Our results will make a really good base for comparing different technologies based on MEA.
In your personal view, do you think the full-scale project at the refinery will be resurrected?
I don’t think so. However, the government has started to look for new possibilities in Norway and they are also looking into the possibility of getting closer involved with international CCS efforts.
What is happening on the international front for TCM?
We have international partners supporting TCM. In addition to STATOIL, we have Shell, Sasol from South Africa in addition to the Norwegian State.
What about E.On?
E.ON is not a partner in the ownership, but we have good communication with E.ON as with other companies working with CCS technologies.
Most of the work at TCM is related to power generation and CO2 emissions. Are you looking into dealing with CO2 emissions in manufacturing processes, chemicals or steel making?
Yes. One of our exhaust gas sources is from cracker at the refinery. We are at present capturing CO2 from that source. The CO2 concentration is approximately 14 percent, and we are looking into the possibility to recycle CO2 and increase the CO2 concentration up to 20 percent the alked to the refinery here where we have data on treating the exhaust gas from the catalytic converter.
You had mentioned earlier in our discussions about working with the cement industry…
They have been to TCM and we have talked with them and we have been giving them advice. In addition, the mobile test unit from Aker has been moved to their site.
What are your priorities for the next year for TCM?
Our priority is to continue to run with first generation technologies—amines in the amine plant. We’re also looking into the possibility of retrofitting the amine plant for the second generation solvents. In addition, we’re also working with utilizing the available area at TCM to test second and third generation technologies.
Explain a bit about this new relationship with the United States that you announced at the CSLF meeting back in November?
We have an agreement between the Norwegian Minister of Energy and DOE to support an international test center network for four years. The Norwegian government would support it the first two years, and then DOE the next two years, with Southern Company having the chairmanship the next two years. Our Managing Director Frank Ellingsen is the chairman.
What level of financial support is coming from the United States, if any?
Not anything at the moment. The Norwegian government is funding the coordinator of the network for two years. And then DOE will do the same for the next two years. But we haven’t worked out all the details yet.
Is the objective to jointly develop testing priorities and avoid duplication?
That’s the idea. We will be sharing knowledge of what we have done and we can also look into, you know, what’s next. We will be having bilateral meetings at both sites. One of the key things is not to exactly duplicate the testing, not to duplicate the mistakes, but to work together to see where is the best place to do the testing with the different kinds of technology.
Is there a reason and why the SASKPower Capture Technology Center is not a party to this Agreement? I was under the impression that they would be part of this network.
SaskPower is part of the test center network.
But they’re not part of the agreement that Norway has signed with the United States?
Right.
So what is their involvement as part of the network?
They are part of the network, and we will be sharing knowledge about lessons learned.
You mean bilateral with Canada or trilateral with United States, Canada, and Norway?
We have companies from both Europe, the U.S. and Canada in the Test Center Network, and we hope to have some Asian companies join soon. We do knowledge sharing with projects like the Boundary Dam project, the Road project and NCCC. They are very eager to see what we have learned.
I mean we have a number of non-proprietary technology questions that need to be discussed and solved. And, we are trying to communicate our learnings from TCM to the next big projects coming up because it’s definitely a benefit for TCM and for the whole CCS community if we help the next guys to avoid some mistakes, installing the right instruments, and start up in the right way.
So, at your expense, you are making this knowledge and experience available to the SASKPower and to Southern Company.
And to others. The Test Center Mongstad was not set up to make money. It was set up to gain knowledge and to progress CCS globally. So that’s our mission. Of course, the vendors will have some specific lessons learned that is proprietary. But the rest we want to share openly. For example, on the MEA testing we’ll have a lot of papers published that will be open to anyone. And this is the first time you have such test results that are completely public.
Let me give you an example of what we are doing as a result of our work at TCM with MEA. We have been doing tests now with MEA with the CHP exhaust from the natural gas fired power plant. We have been doing that for approximately 4,000 hours. We tested with 30 percent MEA which is the basic base case, but have also pushed up the amine concentration to roughly 40 percent. We have tuned the plant. We have been testing transient issues, lots of emission issues.
And all this will be published in such details that you can update your simulation tools like Aspen’s or other programs. Which then means that when this program is updated people will have a more accurate calculation of energy consumption, which means that calculations of operating costs will be much better.
And the fact that we’re putting in design data, operators can better design of an amine plant as a base case with MEA. And in that way, we can reduce the uncertainties. We have really a good published data and we are using EPRI as a verification. They weree at TCM watching over our shoulders all the time during the MEA testing to make sure that we do the right test with the right instrument, do the right calculations, that the lab is doing its work.
So that is your quality control?
That is our quality control.
Given your experience at TCM and in your engineering career, do you think that the U.S. EPA is justified in declaring in the proposed regulations for future coal-fired power plants that capture technology is adequately demonstrated?
In my view, yes, you can design and construct a plant that will remove CO2 from an exhaust gas.
But can the technology be deployed without vastly changing the cost of electricity generated?
That’s very hard to say. It depends on the location, it depends on the steam price, the power price, the fuel price, the value of the CO2. So it’s very hard to give an exact number.
Would you agree with folks that have said that what looks like the most commercially feasible capture technology is an amine-based system?
In my view that is correct for the time being.