Hamborg, Espen S.

Niederer, John P.M.

Versteeg, Geert F.

English

The second dissociation constants of the amino acids β–alanine, taurine, sarcosine, 6-aminohexanoic acid, and the dissociation constant of protonated methyldiethanolamine have been determined from electromotive force measurements at temperatures from 293 K to 353 K. Experimental results are reported and compared to literature values

University of Twente Research Information

Conference Reports GHGT-8445© 2006 ecomed publishers (Verlagsgruppe Hüthig Jehle Rehm GmbH), D-86899 Landsberg and Tokyo • Mumbai • Seoul • Melbourne • ParisEnviron Sci Pollut Res 13 (6) 445 – 446 (2006)Conference Reports8th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-8)Trondheim, Norway, 19th–22nd June 2006Cecilia Askham NylandØstfold Research Foundation (STØ), P.O. Box 276, 1601 Fredrikstad, Norway (firmapost@sto.no)DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/espr2006.08.338was, of course, extensive research presented on the geologicalaspects of CCS and the potential for seepage and leaks of both adiffuse and catastrophic nature.A large part of the conference also addressed legal and regula-tory aspects of CO2 disposal and storage. Current regulations andlaws in force in the EU impose restrictions on long-term deposi-tion and storage of waste. Where CO2 is considered a waste stream,legal restrictions need to be lifted in order to make CCS practica-ble. Current activities for CCS in Norway and the USA have beenexempt from these issues, as the CO2 removed has not been de-fined as waste (e.g. the process was needed in order to improve thequality of the methane gas extracted, or used as an EOR2 me-dium). Several papers addressed the legal and political aspects ofCCS, including the needs of industry in terms of long-term pre-dictable and reliable systems for CO2 prices and financial assist-ance, in order to make the large investments required economi-cally viable for industry. Another important legal aspect was whowould be left with the legal responsibility for the CO2 that wasstored. Long-term storage in aquifers, or other geological stor-age, will mean storage over geological time scales (i.e. 1,000s ofyears). Many presenters argued that this is not something thatcompanies can be liable for. This means there is a lot of activityfor legal and regulatory experts, which was also covered in theconference programme. Over what time scales shall companiesbe liable if there should be a leak, or remediation action neces-sary, and at what point will this responsibility become a respon-sibility for national authorities? What sort of insurance schemes,or funds, could be required in order to provide for potential fu-ture remediation action was also an issue that was addressed.Another issue of interest which was in focus during GHGT-8was the potential use of the Cleaner Development Mechanism(CDM), as a way of making CCS projects more economicallyviable. If CO2 credits could be obtained for CCS for fossil, orbio-energy systems, the economics of the investments would makethem much more interesting for companies. There is a lot of in-ternational industry interest in lobbying for the inclusion of CCSthe CDM (including organisations such as OPEC). The applica-bility of CDM for CCS for fossil systems can be called into ques-tion and, so far, all attempts to achieve inclusion in the CDMhave failed. However, this has also given added interest in bio-fuel systems, which produce CO2 of biological origin, that oilcompanies consider can be captured and stored in order to en-able them to realise CDM credits for disposal of biological CO2.Companies such as Shell are actively investigating and lobbyingfor such possibilities (Sweeney 2006).Many assessments of CCS systems presented at the conferencefocussed on the economics and energy efficiency associated withCCS systems. Few papers addressed assessment of the systemsfrom an holistic environmental perspective, but those that didwhere fairly damning for the current technology routes for CCS.The focus for this conference, with 1,000 participants attending,was on technology, policy and economics associated with CO2capture and storage (CCS).CCS has arisen as a technical approach to help solve a globalproblem. The solution is an 'end-of-pipe' solution proposing stor-age and disposal of CO2, rather than the more modern approachof minimisation at source. Some would argue that this is a step inthe wrong direction, having seen the development from end ofpipe, through a product systems approach to the development ofindustrial ecology (Amundsen 2004). However, as many of thespeakers at this conference argued very eloquently: Global warm-ing is a serious problem, which requires action NOW. The en-ergy requirements of the world's population are continuing toincrease rapidly, with an associated rapid increase in CO2 emis-sions. The fact that China is currently investing in coal powergeneration on a grand scale (without CCS), with investment plansfor almost 300,000 MW added capacity between 2005–2008(Monkejord 2006) and plans to continue increasing capacity, gavean added urgency to the issue for many speakers. The view thatwe cannot afford to do more research and sit on the fence wasoften expressed. The argument was that CO2 sequestration is asolution that can begin to work now. If the geological forma-tions that CO2 is stored in should show leaks over time, it can bepumped up again and put elsewhere (Lindberg 2006).The conference had 1,000 participants, which has been a largeincrease in comparison to earlier conferences on this subject (e.g.only a handful of participants at the first conference), which il-lustrates the growing interest and activity in this field. CCS is thesubject of several large international research projects, like CAS-TOR, DYNAMIS, CACHET and ENCAP. These research pro-grammes all contain broad industry collaborations (companieslike Shell, Statoil, Aker Kværner, Norsk Hydro, Vattenfall andBP working side by side in order to make progress, see Erikssonet al. 2006, and the abstract below), as well as international re-search institutions. The main focus of the conference was thetechnical aspects of separation and containment of CO2. Postcombustion, pre-combustion1 and oxyfuel combustion solutionsfor CO2 treatment were presented, as well as membrane, or tra-ditional amine separation systems. Papers presented at the con-ference focussed on current knowledge and technology for theseparation of CO2, which gives an overall power production effi-ciency reduction of from 8–40% (Panesar et al. 2006 and Metzet al. 2005). These figures are discouraging as they show thatmuch research and development work is still needed before sepa-ration, capture and storage of CO2 are efficient solutions.Different power generation fuels were considered in the researchpresented, with a strong coal industry presence. Coal gasifica-tion and integrated plants that produced both H2 and other chemi-cal products were presented. The infrastructure and safety issuesassociated with H2 as an energy carrier were also covered. There1 Pre-combustion CO2 is the term used where Hydrogen is made (for combus-tion), so the carbon is removed before the energy carrier is combusted.2 Enhanced Oil Recovery – where CO2 gas is injected in order to achieve in-creased oil production.GHGT-8 Conference Reports446 Environ Sci Pollut Res 2006 13 (6) 2006The increased energy requirements and use of separation sys-tems that require solvents, seem to lead to increased environ-mental impacts for almost all of the aspects considered, exceptthe total global warming potential (Viebahn et al. 2006, see theabstract below, and van Gijlswijk et al. 2006). Although thesestudies are screening studies, they do show that reduction of en-vironmental impacts is complex and a single impact approachcan lead to sub-optimal solutions. However, if, as many of thepresenters argued, global warming is such a large problem, dowe have to accept that the solution of the global warming prob-lem will lead to other environmental problems (of a more localnature)? The need for innovative research and development anddetailed knowledge of the complexity of the environmental is-sues associated with CCS systems is certainly a prerequisite forlong-term sustainability.The conference papers will be published in November 2006 (http://www.ghgt8.no). The short extracts from abstracts that are in-cluded in this review give a taste of some of the presentationsgiven. The next GHGT conference will be held in WashingtonD.C. and this author is sure that the number of participants willcontinue to increase, as the reality of the global warming prob-lem and the amount of research and development activity in thisfield increases.ReferencesAmundsen A (2004): Applied Greening of Industry, How to develop Environ-mental friendly and Energy Efficient Industry? Implementation Guideline,Norwegian Energy Efficiency Group, Oslo, Norway, 2004 <www.neeg.com>Eriksson S, Andersson A, Strand K (2006): Using a Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment Approach for Assessing Environmental Impacts of CO2 Capture,Transport and Storage Alternatives. GHGT-8 Conference, 19–22 June 2006,Trondheim, Norway (abstract below*)Lindberg E, Chief Scientist, SINTEF (2006): Storage Review Lecture. GHGT-8Conference, 19–22 June 2006, Trondheim, NorwayMetz B, Davidson O, de Coninck H, Loos M, Meyer L (eds) (2005): Carbon Diox-ide Capture and Storage, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),WMO, UNEP, Cambridge University Press, ISBN-13 978-0-521-86643-9Monkejord M (2006): Globalisation hits European Power. Montel Power News,no 2, 2006, pp 6–7Panesar R, Lord M, Simpson S, White V, Gibbins J, Reddy S (2006): Coal-FiredAdvanced Supercritical Boiler/Turbine Retrofit with CO2 Capture. Oral Pres-entation, GHGT-8 Conference, 19–22 June 2006, Trondheim, NorwaySweeney G, CEO Shell Renewables (2006): CO2 Reduction Options – Whatdoes it take? Plenary lecture, GHGT-8 Conference, 19–22 June 2006,Trondheim, Norwayvan Gijlswijk P, Feron PHM, Davison J (2006): Environmental Impact of SolventProcesses for CO2 Capture. Oral Presentation, GHGT-8 Conference, 19–22June 2006, Trondheim, NorwayViebahn P, Edenhofer O, Esken A, Fischedick M, Nitsch J, Schüwer D, Supers-berger S, Zuberbühler U (2006): Comparison of Carbon Capture and Se-questration with Renewable Energy Technologies Regarding Structural,Economical and Ecologial Aspects. Oral Presentation, GHGT-8 Conference,19–22 June 2006, Trondheim, Norway (abstract below**)* Sara Eriksson*, Annika Andersson, Kerstin StrandVattenfall Research and Development AB, 814 26 Älvkarleby, SwedenVattenfall AB, a large producer of electricity and heat in Europe,runs the research and development project 'Carbon Dioxide FreePower Plant' on carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage fromcoal-fired power plants. An assessment of environmental conse-quences must be performed when carrying out projects such asthe introduction of CO2 capture and storage from power plantson a large scale. A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is astructured and systematic methodology for evaluating environ-mental impacts of proposed policies, plans and programmes. Themethodology behind an SEA is used by Vattenfall to analyse andevaluate environmental aspects of technical alternatives for CO2capture, transport and storage. The SEA methodology was cho-sen to ensure that the environmental assessment is comprehen-sive and that all aspects are considered. Comprehensive knowl-edge will aid the concept design and allocation of resources, andminimise or obviate environmental impacts and risks.The main objective of storing CO2 is to mitigate anthropogenicclimate change and, hence, have a positive impact on the envi-ronment. The basic requisites are that CO2 capture, transportand storage, whether onshore or offshore, are undertaken in away that does not implicate human health and safety and thatdoes not lead to unacceptable impacts on the environment. Acombination of thorough site selection and the utilisation of goodoperational, safety and monitoring procedures are keys to suc-cessful capture, transport and storage of CO2, undertaken in asafe way with a minor impact on the environment.** Peter ViebahnGerman Aerospace Centre (DLR), Pfaffenwaldring 38–40,70565 Stutgart, GermanyThis paper focussed on the problem that there are still many unan-swered questions regarding safe, socially compatible as well as eco-logical and economic sound applications of CCS. Therefore, a firstsystem-analytic view in the form of a life cycle analysis and a costassessment combined with a systematic comparison with renew-able energies regarding future conditions in the power plant mar-ket in Germany between 2020 and 2050 was performed (WI et al.2006, Viebahn et al. 2007). The calculations showed that, in caseof a CO2 capture rate of 88% at the power plants' stack (post andpre-combustion), a greenhouse gas reduction by only 65% to 79%could be achieved. An oxyfuel combustion based power plant witha CO2 capture rate of 99.5% results in a greenhouse gas reductionof 78%. In contrast, renewable electricity based on wind and solarthermal power plants causes only 2% of the hard coal fired powerplant's greenhouse gas emissions.Furthermore, Viebahn showed that renewables would be competi-tive with electricity from CCS based power plants from the begin-ning of CCS technology in 2020 (in the case of wind and solarthermal) or from latest 2030 (considering a mix of all renewables),depending mainly on the price development of the fossil fuels andthe CO2 certificates. Under an energy economic view, the CCS op-tion might come too late for Germany, regarding both the requiredretirement of 60 GW power in the next 15 years and the proposedsustainable energy system with an ecologically optimised exten-sion of renewable energy utilisation and energy efficient measuresin discussion in Germany. Concerning this background, the ques-tion of the retrofit possibility of CCS arises to create conditions,so that a later coupling of a CO2 capture process is technicallypossible and can be applied with the smallest auxiliary costs.Summarising, this analysis showed that a future-oriented approachis necessary to assess new technologies depending on several pa-rameters not currently known. Most studies only consider state-of-the-art conditions or – if at all – a situation in 2020, when CCSpower plants are expected to run commercially. The results ofViebahn et al. reveal that conclusions based only on a year 2020analysis lead to wrong and insufficient results. It is needed to thinkalong long-term conditions and to analyse the impacts of measureslaunched today along the time frame for long-term targets.ReferencesWI (Wuppertal-Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy), DLR (GermanAerospace Center), ZSW (Centre for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research),PIK (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) (2006): RECCS –Comparison of renewable energy technologies (RE) with carbon captureand storage (CCS) regarding structural, economical, and ecological as-pects. Project funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment<http://www.dlr.de/tt/CCS/>. Wuppertal, Stuttgart, PotsdamViebahn P, Nitsch J, Fischedick M, Esken A, Schüwer D, Supersbeger N,Zuberbühler U, Edenhofer O (2007): Comparison of carbon capture and stor-age with renewable energy technologies regarding structural, economic, andecological aspects. In: Int J of Greenhouse Gas Control. Elsevier. Submitted

Determination of Dissociation Constants of CO<sub>2</sub> Absorbents between 293 K - 353 K using Electromotive Force Measurements

https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/297015424/espr2006.08.338.pdf

Determination of Dissociation Constants of CO<sub>2</sub> Absorbents between 293 K - 353 K using Electromotive Force Measurements

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Twente Research Information