The mining industry is evaluating different technologies and options for decarbonizing their mine haul operation. Some of these options can take a long time to implement and delay the industry in reaching its carbon reduction goals. InnoTech Alberta has developed a transitional solution to assist the industry by adopting a plug-and-play solution for the rapid adoption of carbon reduction technologies.

In this proposed concept, a mining vehicle is equipped with a reusable cartridge as part of the Tailpipe Emissions Capture (TER) procedure to capture carbon dioxide before it enters the atmosphere. The cartridge is capable of removing SOx and NOx as well. The CO2-loaded cartridge will be transported to a central facility to remove the CO2 and make it ready for reuse. The collected CO2 will later be sent into the pipeline for storage or utilization.

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) is a suite of technologies that can help to mitigate climate change by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from large point sources such as power plants and industrial facilities. Modularization is a key enabler of CCUS, as it can help to reduce the cost, complexity, and risk of deploying these technologies.

There are several advantages to modularizing carbon capture systems. First, it can help to reduce the upfront cost of investment, as smaller modules can be deployed more quickly and easily than larger, monolithic systems. Second, modularization can make it easier to scale up or down CCUS systems as needed, which can be important for meeting fluctuating demand for CO2 capture. Third, modular systems are easier to transport and install, which can reduce the time and disruption associated with deploying CCUS technologies.

In addition to these technical advantages, modularization can also help to improve the social acceptability of CCUS. By breaking down large, complex systems into smaller, more manageable components, modularization can make it easier for stakeholders to understand and trust CCUS technologies. This is important, as public acceptance is essential for the widespread deployment of CCUS.

Overall, modularization is a key enabler of carbon capture. By reducing the cost, complexity, and risk of these technologies, modularization can help to make CCUS a more attractive option for mitigating climate change.

Here are some specific examples of how modularization is being used in carbon capture:

• The Petra Nova project in Texas is the world's largest post-combustion carbon capture and storage project. The project uses modularized carbon capture units that can be easily added or removed as needed.
• The Carbon Clean project in the Netherlands is developing a modularized carbon capture system that can be used to capture CO2 from industrial facilities. The system is designed to be scalable and transportable, making it a good option for small and medium-sized businesses.
• The Carbon Capture and Storage Research and Development Centre in the UK is developing a modularized carbon capture system that can be used to capture CO2 from power plants. The system is designed to be energy efficient and cost-effective.

These are just a few examples of how modularization is being used in carbon capture. As the technology continues to develop, modularization is likely to become even more important in the future.

Delta CleanTech Inc. carried out a Front-end Engineering Design (FEED) study for a 1000 metric tonne per day (TPD) Carbon Capture Unit for Jackfish 1 Heavy Oil Operations in Alberta, Canada. The FEED Study is crucial for detail engineering and construction to get an accurate estimation of project expenditures. The study was based on CO2 capture from the exhaust of three Once‐Through Steam Generators (OTSG’s) at Jackfish 1 Steam‐Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) thermal in‐situ oilsands production facility near Conklin, Alberta. The captured CO2 can be utilized for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) or sent for CO2 Sequestration. Delta CleanTech’s carbon capture technology is using an aqueous reactive chemical solvent. The plant was designed to be a modular shop-fabricated plant on sections that allow easy fabrication, transportation and installations. The process configuration consists of one absorber and one stripper. The total plant foot-print is estimated to be 8000 m2 (80m × 100m). The study estimated the capital expenditure (CAPEX) within ±15% accuracy excluding downstream CO2 compression, dehydration, transportation, and storage. The estimated CAPEX spread simply over 20 years of production at design rate gives an indicated CAPEX component of the capture cost of about $11.98/tonne of CO2. Using a weighted average cost of capital of 8%, assuming a long-term average plant throughput of 85% of design rate, and assuming a plant availability of 95%, the CAPEX component of carbon capture cost from SAGD facilities will be under $37/tonne. Delta estimates the operating cost of a carbon capture unit to be approximately $30/tonne. The indicated total carbon capture cost at 8% cost of capital is under $70/tonne.

The term "Balance of Plant" (BOP) is commonly used to describe the collection of supporting components and auxiliary systems that work in conjunction with a unit, excluding the unit itself. In the context of a post combustion carbon capture unit, BOP typically encompasses various units, including flue gas collection and blowers, steam production for amine regeneration, CO2 compressor and dehydration unit, and water treatment. The cost of BOP can vary depending on factors such as the chosen carbon capture technology, the availability of utilities, choice of cooling medium, and numerous other considerations.

In a typical carbon capture facility, it is estimated that approximately 40% of the total capital expenditure (CAPEX) will be allocated towards the Balance of Plant (BOP). This significant portion of the CAPEX is attributed to the various units and infrastructure required for the proper functioning of the carbon capture process. Ensuring an efficient and reliable BOP is vital for the overall performance and success of the carbon capture facility.

Proper cost breakdown analysis and optimization of the BOP are essential to ensure efficient operations and cost-effectiveness in carbon capture projects. Approximately 50% of the total cost of the Balance of Plant (BOP) is attributed to compression and dehydration, while steam production typically accounts for 25% of the cost. Water treatment and flue gas collection together make up around 25% of the overall cost.

Studies and optimization efforts aimed at minimizing the cost of the Balance of Plant (BOP) in a carbon capture project hold significant importance. These endeavors help identify cost-saving opportunities and enhance the overall cost-effectiveness of the project. Several studies and optimization techniques can be employed to achieve this goal. These may include comprehensive techno-economic analyses to evaluate the cost implications of different BOP configurations, equipment selections, and design alternatives. Studies can also focus on optimizing the layout and arrangement of BOP components to reduce construction costs, minimize material requirements, and enhance operational efficiency. Furthermore, exploring alternative materials and technologies, conducting lifecycle cost analyses, and leveraging advanced control and automation systems can contribute to cost optimization efforts. Additionally, assessments of site-specific factors, such as available utilities, local regulations, and potential synergies with existing infrastructure, can inform optimization strategies. Ultimately, the findings from these studies and optimization initiatives provide valuable insights and guidance for decision-making processes, leading to more economically viable and sustainable carbon capture projects.

Within this presentation, we dive into various cost and energy saving opportunities and potential savings that can be achieved within the Balance of Plant (BOP):

• Ducting material and routing. Challenge and solutions in collection of flue gas from multiple sources.
• Flue gas blower location and control.
• Steam production and condensate recycling.
• Combined heat and power generation
• Cooling method evaluation (Air, Glycol, Cooling Water, or a combination)

Injection flow streams from dynamic simulation models presented in regulatory permit applications to date generally focus on a best technical estimate case. This makes sense, given the focus of the regulator is typically to protect health and safety of the public and ensure that injected CO2 stays confined to the target zone. However, reliance on an injection flowstream from a single model built with a regulatory perspective (without a history match) as the basis of an investment decision may leave financial partners vulnerable to low-side outcomes (as well as lacking an understanding of upside potential). Permit approval does not necessarily guarantee project will achieve nameplate volumes over the short or long terms – operators can over-permit and under-inject easier than the reverse. An understanding of the subsurface uncertainty during the early stages of project maturation is key to successful investment decisions. This presentation will cover: - Examples of uncertainty discussion in permit applications. - Overview of key subsurface uncertainties in CCS and their impact on modeling results. These include property inputs such as relative permeability, porosity, and poro-perm trends, as well as model construction choices such as property distribution methods. - Case study comparing results of CCS plume models with different property realizations (layer cake, stochastic, and conceptual model distributions) - Conclusion touching on the Storage Resource Management System, the success of its analog (the PRMS) in oil & gas financing, and its future potential for CCS financing.