Availableonlineatwww.sciencedirect.com
EnergyProcedia00(2008)000–000
Energy
Procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/XXX
GHGT-9
EnvironmentalImpactStudyofaPowerPlantwithCarbonCapture
andStorageneartheUKCoast
DrTAHill,DrM-JBooth,MrCDorren,MsSMStiffandWHull
E.ONEngineering,Ratcliffe-on-Soar,Nottingham,UK
Elsevieruseonly:Receiveddatehere;reviseddatehere;accepteddatehere
Abstract
Thispaperreportstheresultsofanenvironmentalimpactassessment(EIA)ofahypothetical400MWeIGCCpowerplantfitted
withCO
2
capturetechnologyandincludesthetransportationofCO
2
viaahighpressurepipelinetoageologicalformationunder
theNorthSeaandsubsequentstorage.Theemphasishasbeenonassessingenvironmentalimpactsfromthosefeatureswhichare
specifictotheCarbonCaptureandStorage(CCS)technologyandincludesanappraisalofthecurrentadequacyofinformationto
enableEIAsforthepowerplant,transportationandstoragecomponentstobeundertaken.
?2008ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved
Keywords:Carbon;Capture;Storage;Environmental;Impact;Assessment;Dynamis;IGCC;CCS
1.Introduction
ThisstudylooksatahypotheticalIGCCpowerplantwithCO
2
capturetechnologyatKillingholme,UK,andinvestigatesthe
impactsontheenvironmentofthecompletefacility.ThisstudyfollowsthemethodologyforEnvironmentalImpactAssessment
(EIA)requiredintheUKandinvestigatesanapproachtodeterminetheenvironmentalacceptabilityofaCarbonCaptureand
Storage(CCS)projectthatisbothrealisticandconsistentwithexistingindustrialpractice.
ThebulkofthestudywasconductedaspartoftheEUFramework6projectDYNAMIS:TowardsHydrogenandElectricity
ProductionwithCarbonDioxideCaptureandStorage.ThisstudyisoneoffourcasestudiesperformedwithinDYNAMIS
whicharedesignedtolookatCCSEIAsforavarietyoftechnologiesandstoragelocations.
InJanuary2008theEuropeanCommissionpublishedaproposalforaDirectiveonthegeologicalstorageofcarbondioxide
andanaccompanyingimpactassessment,referredtoasCCSDwithinthispaper[1].ThedraftDirectiveestablishesalegal
frameworktopreventorreducethenegativeenvironmentaleffectsandriskstohumanhealtharisingfromthegeologicalstorage
ofcarbondioxide.TheDirectiveisheavilyinfluencedbytheOSPAR[2]andLondonProtocol[3]amendments.TheCCSD
DrTAHill.Tel.:+44(0)2476192696;fax:+44(0)1159024007.
E-mailaddress:tim.hill@eon-engineering-uk.com.
c2009ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
EnergyProcedia1(2009)2463–2470
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.008
2Authorname/EnergyProcedia00(2008)000–000
doesmuchtoremoveprohibitionsonCCSwhichexistundercurrentEUlegislation.Inparticular,existingEUwasteandground
waterDirectiveswillbeamendedtopermittheinjectionofcarbondioxideintostoragesites,andanexistingDirectivecovering
theassessmentoftheenvironmentalimpactofcertainprojectswillbeextendedtocovertheenvironmentalimpactofcapture,
pipelinetransportandstorage.
TheobjectiveofthisstudyhasbeentogainexperienceofCCSEIAsandtocontributetounderstandingoftheCCSEIA
process,identifyinggapsinknowledge.
2.DescriptionofCCSProject
Figure1-Locationofpowerplant.
ThehypotheticalpowerstationsiteislocatedinKillingholmeintheNorthEastMidlandsareaoftheUK,seefigure1.
TheIGCCpowerstationhasanelectricaloutputofabout400MWewiththeabilitytoabstractapproximately40–50MWthof
hydrogen.Itcomprisesofagasifier;anairseparatorunit;ashiftreactor;anacidgasremovalstageandasulphurrecoveryunit;a
gasturbine;awasteheatrecoveryboiler;andasteamturbine.Variousprocessescleanthesynthesisgaspriortocombustionto
reducethefinalemissionsandaphysicalabsorptionprocessknownastheRectisolsystemisusedtocapture90%ofCO
2
pre-
combustionandtransportitviaapipe-linetoastoragesiteintheSouthernNorthSea.Theprincipalfuelisassumedtobecoal.
Thepipe-lineisdesignedtocarry2.2MtCO
2
perannumbasedona35%cycleefficiencyattheKillingholmesite.TheCO
2
streamwillbetransportedunderpressureleavingthesiteatapproximately140mbar.TheCO
2
willbeinjectedintoadeepsaline
formationundertheNorthSeaafigure1.
3.ScopeofStudy
ThemajoremissionstoairandwaterfromtheIGCCplantwereidentified.Inaddition,potentialroutesfordisposalof
emissionsandre-useofby-productswereconsidered.
TheactivitiesandassociatedimpactsthatwereconsideredintheDynamisEnvironmentalStudyareshownintable1.Thisis
notacomprehensivelistofalltopicscoveredinanEIAbutcoversthosewhichCCSmaycontributesomethingnew.
2464T.A.Hilletal./EnergyProcedia1(2009)2463–2470
Authorname/EnergyProcedia00(2008)000–0003
Table1-EnvironmentalimpactsrelevanttoanIGCC-CCSprojectintheUK
ImpactPower&CapturePlantTransportthroughpipe-lineStorageinunderground,off-shore
BiodiversityEffectofCO
2
leakageonmarineecosystem
Rawmaterials,resourcesandwater
use
Processandcooling
wateruse
VisualimpactImpactofinstallation
(e.g.stack)includingits
surroundings
GaseousemissionsCO
2
,NOx,SOx,
hydrocarbons,PM,
VOCsandheavymetals
Leakages/blowoffincase
ofemergencies
LeakagesofCO
2
frominstallation(leakage
rates)
WastemanagementSolidwastehandlingof
ash,slagandsulphur.
Qualityandquantityof
wasteflows
Noise,lightandodournuisance-Noisezoning-Noiseemissions
surroundingcompression
station
-Noiseemissionssurroundinginjection
station
Soil/seabeddisruption-Inducedseismicity
-Drillingduringconstruction
Soil/seabeddisruptionLeakageofCO
2
tosoili.e.
mobilisationofheavy
metals/acidifcation
LeakageofCO
2
toseabedi.e.mobilisation
ofheavymetals/acidifcation
Groundwaterandsurfacewater
contamination/disruption
-Coolingwater
discharge
-Contaminationin
receivingwaters
-LeakageofCO
2
towaterLeakageofCO
2
towaterleadingto
acidificationandeffectsonmarine
ecosystem
4.Emissions
Figure2showsadiagrammaticrepresentationoftheIGCCprocess,indicatingmainemissions.
Wastewatertreatmentisneededtoremovesuspendedsolids,tracemetals,ammonia,halidesandanionicspeciesmainly
associatedwithgascoolingandslagquenchingprocesses.Gasificationblowdownwaterislikelytohaveafairlyhighdissolved
saltcontentmakingitunsuitablefordischargeifKillingholmewereaninlandsite.However,providedthatthewastewater
treatmentplantperformssatisfactorily,thereisunlikelytobeanyreasonwhydischargetotheHumberestuarywouldnotbe
permitted.Theavailabledataindicatesthatchlorideconcentrationsofbetween1,000-7,000mg/lmaybeexpectedinthetreated
gasifiereffluentwhichcomparesfavourablywiththatoftheHumberEstuaryofbetween16,900mg/latlowwaterslackand
11,300mg/lathighwaterslack.
Theproductionofflyashisminimisedbyconversionoftheashinthegasifierintosolid,vitreousslagwhichischemically
inertandshouldbeabletobemarketedforroadconstructionandconcreteaggregatepurpose.
T.A.Hilletal./EnergyProcedia1(2009)2463–24702465
4Authorname/EnergyProcedia00(2008)000–000
Figure2DiagrammaticrepresentationoftheIGCCprocessincludingprincipalemissions.
Intheclarification/precipitationwastewatertreatmentstepssomesludgewillbeproduced.Whilstthissludgehasthe
potentialtobeclassifiedaseitherhazardousornon-hazardouswasteithasbeenclassifiedashazardouswasteatotherIGCC
installations(e.g.Buggenum)duetoseleniumcontent.Severalthousandtonnesofthismaybeproducedperyear.Intermsof
compositionitisnotdissimilartothesludgesderivedfromtheFlueGasDesulpherization(FGD)plant.Theseareoftenrefired
intheboilerthereforeitmaybepossibletoreturnthisstreamtothegasifierfordisposal.However,whilsttheWasteIncineration
DirectiveisnottriggeredbytheseactivitiesonconventionalcoalplantequippedwithFGDitmaybenecessarytonegotiatewith
theEnvironmentAgency(EA)toseethatthesameoutcomeispossibleinIGCC.Theconcentrationsofsolublesaltsinthe
sludgearenotlikelytohaveanyspecialimplicationsforthecategoryoflandfillsite,asbothnon-hazardousandhazardous
landfillsrequireleachatecontrolsystems.
AcomparisonwasmadeoftheemissionstoairexpectedfromtheKillingholmeprojectcomparedtoothernon-CCSpower
planttechnologies,table2.Itcanbeseenthat,ingeneral,IGCCplantscombinedwithpre-combustionCO
2
capture,when
comparedtoexistingcoalfiredplant,canresultinasubstantialreductionofgaseousemissionsotherthanCO
2
.
Itwasconcludedthatnoneofthewastesemittedfromthepowerplantsiteduetothecapturetechnologywouldhaveany
novelenvironmentalimpact.
Table2-TypicalemissionsexpectedfrommainstackHRSGcomparedwithLargeCombustionPlantDirective,BestAvailable
Technologyandothercoaltechnologies
mg/Nm
3
at15%O
2
(>300MW)
SpeciesLCPDELVBATfornew
coalplants
c
BATfornew
CCGT
c
IGCC
Pulverisedfuel
withFGD
f
Super-criticalcoal-fired
plant
g
NO
x
80
b
/120
a
36-6020-9060-80
d
20080
SO
2
80
b
8-60-20
d
16080
PM20
b
2-4-0.02-
0.35
e
104
CO-12-205-10030-70
--
a
ELVtakenforagasturbine(>50MW
th
)usinggaseousfuelotherthannaturalgas
b
ELVtakenforplantsusingsolidfuels(>300MW
th
),
c
IPPC[4],
d
James[5],
e
Puertollano[6]
f
ValuestakenfromRatcliffePPC,
g
ValuestakenfromKingsnorthEIS,E.ONUK
2466T.A.Hilletal./EnergyProcedia1(2009)2463–2470
Authorname/EnergyProcedia00(2008)000–0005
5.TransportationofCO
2
viaPipeline
Adesktopstudywasundertakentoassesstheenvironmentalimpactofthepipe-linerouteoptionsselectedtotransportCO
2
capturedfromtheKillingholmeIGCCplanttoanoff-shorestoragesitelocatedinthesouthernNorthSea(SNS).
Figure3presentstheoptionsunderconsiderationforon-shoreandoff-shorepipe-linetransportofCO
2
.Theoptions
consideredandselectedforthisstudywerebasedonminimisingenvironmentalimpactsaswellasconsideringthehealthand
safetyissuesthatmayariseduringthelifetimeofthepipe-line.Therouteofthepipelinewasgovernedprimarilybythe
classificationofdensephaseliquidorsuper-criticalCO
2
underUKregulation.ThisiscurrentlyunderassessmentbytheHealth
andSafetyExecutive.ItwasalsodecidedtoavoiddrinkingwaterSourceProtectionZoneswhich,mightotherwisetrigger
mandatoryriskassessment.Therisktogroundwaterofapipelinereleaseislargelyunknown–itmaybeinsignificant,butuntil
furtherstudiesareavailabletodemonstratethis,aprecautionaryapproachwasadopted.Itwasdecidedthatadeveloperwould
choosetoavoidthesezones(ifpossible).Analternativeshorterrouteoptionwasconsideredfortheon-shorepipe-linetohead
directlyacrosstheHumberEstuaryafterleavingtheKillingholmesite.However,duetotheHumberestuarybeingpartofthe
Natura2000networkandbeingdesignatedasaSiteofSpecialScientificInterestSSSIitwouldprovemuchmoredifficulttogain
planningpermissionforanewpipe-lineinthisarea.Thereforethisalternativeroutewasnotconsideredfurther.Itisconcluded
thatCO
2
pipelineroutingisasignificantissueforapowerplant,withananalogywithanaturalgaspipelinetosupplyaCCGT.
Anassessmentwascarriedoutofthefugitiveemissions(predominantlyCO
2
fromthepipeline)andassociatedimpurities.
TypicalconcentrationspresentwereSO
2
0%,NO
x
0%,O
2
+N
2
+Ar0.03-0.6%,CO0.03-0.4%,CH
4
0.01%,H
2
S40ppm,CO
2
98%.ItwasconcludedthattheconcentrationsofimpuritiesintheCO
2
areinsignificantinthemselvestocauseany
environmentalimpact.FugitiveemissionsofCO
2
duringnormaloperationofthepipelinewereestimatedatabout
10-1000tonnesperyear,usingguidancefromIPCC.Thisisinsignificantcomparedtothevolumestransported.
Figure3-Proposedon-shoreandoff-shorepipe-lineroutesfromKillingholmeIGCCtotheselectedstoragesite.Image
generatedbyBritishGeologicalSurvey.Gasfieldsandinfrastructure?DepartmntforBusinessEnterpriseand
Regulatoryreform(BERR).Designatedareas(SAC''s,SSSI''s,NNR''sandRamsarsites)?NaturalEngland.Closed
structuresintheBunterSandstone?NaturalEnvironmentResearchCouncilNERC(BritshGeologicalSurvey).
6.EIAofanOffshoreSite
InformationwascollatedonthecurrentknowledgeofecosystemsandspeciestobefoundintheNorthSeaareaofthestorage
siteandthepipelineroute.Anumberofsourcesareavailableandtheinformationisreasonablycomprehensiveforthisareae.g.
EuropeanEnvironmentAgency’sEurope''sbiodiversity,SeasaroundEurope:TheNorthSea,andtheUKJointNature
T.A.Hilletal./EnergyProcedia1(2009)2463–24702467
6Authorname/EnergyProcedia00(2008)000–000
ConservationCommittee.Offshoredevelopmentiscontrolledthroughthedesignationofprotectedareaswhicharewell-defined
eitherataEuropeanlevelorunderUKlegislation.
Theenvironmentalimpactofanynewinfra-structureassociatedwiththeinjectionoftheCO
2
(e.g.platformsorsub-sea
infrastructure)wasdeterminedtobesimilartothatcurrentlyusedbytheoilandgasindustryinthisareaoftheNorthSeaandis
notreportedonhere.Areviewoftheeffectsofsuchinfra-structureonthemarineenvironmentwasundertakeninsupportofthis
assessment.
Bydefinition,aCO
2
storagesitewhichhasbeenwellcharacterizedpresentsaverylowrisktotheenvironment.Leakage
shouldnotbeexpectedfromcarefullyselected,operatedandmonitoredstoragesites.TheproblemforanEnvironmentalImpact
AssessmentistostrikeabalancebetweenassumingnofurtherimpactonceCO
2
hasbeeninjectedintothegeologicalformation,
andadetailedinvestigationintoalargenumberofhighlyimprobableeventsthatwouldaffecttheenvironmentweretheyto
occur.
Foranystoragesitetherearesomepotentialmechanismslikelytobecommontomostgeologicalstores.Theseare:
1.CO
2
migrationviaman-madestructures(boreholes,wells-operationalorabandoned),injectionwellblowouts
2.CO
2
migrationalongfaults(knownorunknown),faults‘opened’byinjection-inducedseismicity,orboundary
discontinuities
3.CO
2
migrationthroughthecaprockif:(1)gaspressureexceedscapillarypressure(2)discontinuouscaprockdueto
complexstructuralgeologyandfaulting(3)dissolutionofcaprock,
4.Displacementofinterstitialfluids,primarilysalineformationwaterbutwouldincludehydrocarbons
5.MovementofCO
2
outofacontainmentzoneintoaregionincontactwithaneco-system.
Eachstoragesiteis,ofcourse,goingtohavemanysitespecificaspectsassociatedwithit,however,theEIAforthestorage
siteshouldincludeasufficientlevelofinformationinordertodemonstratethattheenvironmentwillnotbesignificantly
affected,shouldthelowprobabilityeventsoccur.
AdoptingthisgenericapproachtotheEIAenablesalinktobeestablishedwiththeRiskAssessmentbasedonthegeological
andreservoirmodelswhichenabletheCO
2
movementwithinthereservoirtobesimulated.Thisapproachalsosavestimeand
effortandavoidsanunnecessarilycomplexdegreeofanalysis.
ThisapproachwasthenappliedtotheEIAofthestoragesite.Becausethisisadesk-topstudy,resultsarepurelyillustrative.
7.ResultsofCO
2
InjectionModelling
Figure3showsthelocationoftheproposedstoragesite.Itformspartofasequenceofmajorstructuralclosures
intheSNSBunterSandstone.Thetotalcapacityofthisstructurehasbeenestimatedas622Mt,HollowayandKirk[7],and
isknowntohaveanumberofoldexplorationwells.
WithintheDynamisproject,thesuitabilityoftheproposedformationtostoreCO
2
wasundertakenbyNetherlands
OrganizationforAppliedScientificResearch(TNO)andInstitutFran?aisduPétrole(IFP).Theworkwassupportedbythe
BritishGeologicalSurvey,whoprovidedgeologicaldataavailableincludinggeophysicallogs,for5explorationwellsinthe
vicinity,limitedporosityandpermeabilitydataandastructurecontourmapofthedepthtothetopoftheBunterSandstone
reservoir.Ageologicalmodelwhichextended70kminaneast-westdirectionand55kminanorth-southdirection(3832.5km
2
modelarea)wasconstructedbyTNO.Acrossthearea,theBunterSandstoneFormationvariesinthicknessfrom40mtoalmost
200m.TNOandIFPcreatedseparatereservoirmodelsby‘upscaling’thegeologicalmodel,usingavarietyofassumptions.
Preliminaryanalysisindicatedthatasingleinjectionwellwassufficient–reservoirpressuresdidnotexceedthefracture
pressureofthecaprock,althoughfurthersitespecificinvestigationworkneedstoundertakentoverifythis.
2468T.A.Hilletal./EnergyProcedia1(2009)2463–2470
Authorname/EnergyProcedia00(2008)000–0007
Injection
well
Explorationwell
Injection
well
Explorationwells
Figure4aandfigure4b-IllustrativepredictedCO
2
saturationwithinreservoiratendofinjectionperiod,30years,andafter
1000years(IFP)
Aspartoftheinjectionmodellingsimulations100Mtofcarbondioxidewasinjectedintothereservoiroveraperiodof
30years(3.3Mt/y).ThebehaviouroftheCO
2
withinthestoragereservoirwassimulatedupto1000years.
Fiveformerexplorationwellsarelocatedinthevicinityofthestorageformation.Noneighbouringaquiferformationsused
fordrinkingwatersupplywereidentified.
Themodellingstudieswereincompleteatthetimeofwritingandthereforeonlypreliminaryresultsareavailable.However,
figure4illustratestheextentoftheinjectedCO
2
plumeafter1000years.ItcanbeseenthattheCO
2
hasonlycomeintocontact
with1outofthe5localexplorationwells(contactfirstoccurringafter500years).TheCO
2
hasalsoremainedwithinthe
boundariesofthestoragesite.
ConsiderationofthepotentialeffectsofthedisplacementofsalineformationwaterduetoCO
2
injectionwasnotlookedatin
anydetailinthemodellingstudy,althoughestimatesofthevolumeofwaterdisplacedbytheCO
2
wereofasimilarsizetothe
volumesofCO
2
injected.
TherehasnotbeenalargequantityofresearchdoneontheimpactofCO
2
leaksonmarinespecies.However,Plymouth
MarineLaboratory,UK,hasundertakenaninitialassessmentoftheeffectsoflargevolumeCO
2
leakagesfrompointsources(e.g
pipelinerupture)andareasources(e.g.generalgeologicalfailure)intheNorthSea,Blackford[8].Thisisrestrictedtoafairly
largegridatpresent,anddoesnotmakepredictionsonalocalscalebelowseveralkm.Themodelissupportedbyaprogramme
oflaboratoryexperimentsonmarineorganisms.However,theyareabletoconcludethattheenvironmentalimpactonaregional
scalefromplausiblescenariosofleakageofcapturedCO
2
isminimalandsignificantlylessthantheimpactofuncheckedglobal
CO
2
emissions.ThisanalysisprovidessomeevidencethatCO
2
emittedduetoafailureinthepipelineorawellassociatedwith
thisprojectwouldnothaveasignificanteffectonthemarineenvironment.However,itwasidentifiedthatfurtherworkwas
neededtolookatlocalandfinescaleresponses,andtoquantitytheresponseoftheecosystemtothesechanges,Blackford[8].
ThisEIAstudywouldhavefurtherbenefitedfrominformationonpossibleCO
2
emissionratesandlikelyduration,inthe
unlikelyeventthataleakviaanoffshorewellweretooccur.However,informationonemissionratesforarangeofreservoir
circumstancesisnotavailableintheliterature,IEAGHG[9].
AnEIAwillnormallycontainadescriptionofamonitoringplanwhichwillprovidebothbaselinedataandademonstration
thattheEIAhasnotunderestimatedtheeffectofoperationsontheenvironment.Ananalysisofmonitoringpossibilitiesforthe
storagesitewasbeyondthescopeofthisassessment.
T.A.Hilletal./EnergyProcedia1(2009)2463–24702469
8Authorname/EnergyProcedia00(2008)000–000
8.Conclusions
TheLegalFrameworkforenablingCCSinEuropeisinthefinalstagesofdevelopment,withtheexpectationofanEU
DirectiveonCCSbeingapprovedbyearly2009.
Overall,nosignificantdifferenceswerefoundbetweentherequirementsofanEIAforaCCSpowerprojectandanon-CCS
powerprojectasfaraspowerplantsiteissuesareconcerned.Likewise,anEIAforaCO
2
pipelinewouldfollowthesame
assessmentmethodologyasforanaturalgaspipeline.However,inthiscaseunderexistingUKregulation,guidanceisrequired
onasuitablesafetyclassificationforhighpressureCO
2
inorderforpipelinedesignandpipelineroutingtobeundertaken.Also,
whilstthereareunlikelytobeanysignificantenvironmentalissuesassociatedwiththepipelineon-shore,thereisanabsenceof
referencematerialontheenvironmentaleffectsofsmallbutsustainedleaksofCO
2
intothesoilaroundapipeline.
IntermsofthelayingofaCO
2
pipelineoffshoreundertheNorthSea,anEIAwillcoverthesameissuesasrequiredforoilor
gaspipelines.Theconstructionofinjectionandmonitoringinfra-structurewilllikewisenotpresentanynovelfeaturesforan
EIA.
EcosystemandspeciesdatafortheNorthSeainthevicinityofthestoragesitewerefoundtobereasonablycomprehensive.
ThereissomedataavailableintheliteratureonthelikelyeffectofCO
2
onmarineorganismsintheNorthSea,includinga
modellingstudyonworstcaseleakagerates.AmodelofCO
2
transportwithinthestoragereservoirhasbeenconstructed,andno
CO
2
ispredictedtomovebeyondtheboundarystoragevolumeoverthe1000yearperiodmodelled.ThemostlikelyCO
2
leakagepathwaysthathavebeenidentifiedareformerexplorationwellsortheinjectionwellwhenabandoned.Itisexpectedthat
CO
2
leakagefromthesesourceswouldbeverysmallcomparedtothevolumesstoredinthereservoir,however,noinformation
wasavailablefromthisstudyorfromtheliterature,onemissionrates,andlikelydurationofCO
2
leakingfromoffshorewells.
Suchinformationwouldbeusefultofurtherdemonstratetheefficiencyofgeologicalstorageandlowriskofecological
disturbanceintheunlikelyeventthatleakageoccurred.
9.Acknowledgements
ThisworkislargelybasedonstudiesundertakenwithEUfundingundertheDynamisFramework7project.Theauthors
wouldliketothanktheDynamisEnvironmentalCaseStudyteamsatVattenfall,ProgressiveEnergyLtd,andStatoilHydro,in
particularSarahEriksson,EstherOchoa-Fernández,andCharlesEickhoff,fortheirinputintotheSpecialReportsusedinthis
study.AlsothankstotheBGS,TNOandIFPfortheirworkonthestoragecasestudy.
References
1.ProposalforaDirectiveoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilonthegeologicalstorageofcarbondioxideandamendingCouncil
Directives85/337/EEC,96/61/EC,Directives2000/60/EC,2001/80/EC,2004/35/EC,2006/12/ECandRegulation(EC)No1013/2006.
2.OSPARDecision2007/2ontheStorageofCarbonDioxideStreamsinGeologicalFormations.
3.1996ProtocoltotheConventiononthePreventionofMarinePollutionbyDumpingofWastesandOtherMatter,1972Annex4.IPPC,
IntegratedPollutionPreventionandControlReferenceDocumentonBestAvailableTechniquesforLargeCombustionPlants,European
Commission,2006.
5.JamesS.R,E.ONperscomm
6.PuertollanoIGCC,www.elcogas.es
7.HollowayS.,KirkK.L.,AquiferstoragepotentialintheUKsectoroftheSouthernNorthSea,BritishGeologicalSurvey,CR/06/056,2006.
8.Blackford,Jetal,RegionalscaleimpactsofdistinctCO
2
additionsintheNorthSea...,Mar.Pollut.Bull.(2008),
doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.04.048.
9.IEAGreenhousehouseGasR&DProgramme,EnvironmentalAssessmentfroCO
2
CaptureandStorage,TechncicalStudy2007/1,March
2007.
2470T.A.Hilletal./EnergyProcedia1(2009)2463–2470
|
|
