Air Liquide’s CCS initiatives at Rotterdam- Green Hydrogen (NER 300) - CO2 Hub with JV partners
Brussels, 27/11/2013 l Kiewiet, Jacques l Air Liquide Industrie B.V.
27-11-20132 Air Liquide, world leader in gases for industry, health and the environment
2
■ Air Liquide’s NER300 proposal consisted of Green Hydrogen in Rotterdam
■ At a later stage, Air Liquide could consider deployment at its Antwerp facility
Green Hydrogen opportunities in the Benelux
Rotterdam:
• up to 500 kt/y Antwerpen:
• up to 550 kt/y
27-11-20133 Air Liquide, world leader in gases for industry, health and the environment
Air Liquide’s Green Hydrogen Project
1
–
r
1
–
r
R’dam with ROAD
(EEPR + Dutch support):
R’dam with ROAD + Green Hydrogen (NER300 + Dutch support):
27-11-20134 Air Liquide, world leader in gases for industry, health and the environment
Air Liquide’s evaluation of NER300
Facts:
■ Air Liquide spent 4 years developing a viable and solid CCS proposal
■ Dutch subsidy secured (meanwhile withdrawn); final conditions under negotiation
■ Major condition precedent: NER300 funding
What went wrong?
■ AL was unable to produce the Final Confirmation letter, because the project economics as calculated under NER300 program were not matching Air Liquide’s own economics
■ Full clarification of this misalignment was (due to NER300 competition + confidentiality reasons) only possible after the Final Award selection
The Green Hydrogen project was not awarded with NER300 and stopped
27-11-20135 Air Liquide, world leader in gases for industry, health and the environment
Main difficulties in developing CCS in Europe
■ “Usual” liabilities for emitters
■“Usual” liabilities for E&P operators
■New and unacceptable liabilities during injection and xx yrs after closure
Civil Code Environmental damages Climate damages (ETS)
Capture X X X
Transport X X X
Storage X X X
1. RES has an Investment hurdle; Industrial CCS also has an operational hurdle (Operation cost > ETS) Is a Performance grant the right tool?
2. Transport & Storage synergy is essential for developing CCS, though:■ Support programs only focus on ‘point-to-point’ solutions ■ Support schemes are managed by different DG’s + MS ■ Transport & Storage is not core for emitters
How to develop (essential) synergies between CCS projects (clusters)?
3. London Protocol: cross border CO2 Transport & Storage (e.g. EOR case)
4. ETS + CCS Directives are linked via an ETS opt-in of a CO2 storage site
End of presentationThank you for your attention
Top Related