| Carbon capture and storage
recommendations such as the ABS guide on liquefied carbon dioxide carriers. For shipping companies, following guides like these can help mitigate health and safety risks. Additionally, corrosion reactions could potentially impact the integrity of the ship and/or create harm to personnel. If liquid CO2 gaseous CO2
The physical properties and transport conditions of CO2
contains more water than
, it can become more corrosive Also, a high-level of non-condensable impurities can substantially consume the volumetric capacity. For example, the presence of 10% hydrogen can reduce the capacity by 27%, which would incur a financial loss. The density of the cargo must also be considered, in that lower-density LCO2
reduces a ship’s
volumetric efficiency, and a higher pressure limits tank size, and requires increased wall thickness.
, and consequent issues like compression liquefaction system and power demand, need to be better understood in order to create definitive guidelines for handling and shipping. The design of the cargo tanks should be in accordance with the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk, or IGC code. This code has been the basis for the design of cargo tanks for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) since the 1960s. Trials around carrier materials are also underway. New high-strength carbon-manganese steel materials are being developed by steel
mills for example that could be used as CO2 carrier tank material subject to approval by the ship’s Classification Society. Trials like these are
critical in that they provide more clarity around ideal pressure, temperature, and composition mechanisms so that we can create the right conditions for transporting CO2
in liquid form,
throughout the shipping transport chain. While there are some country-specific challenges, the CCUS industry globally is gathering pace, allowing many nations to unlock the possibilities of sustainable emissions reduction. However, the transportation of CO2
must be
optimised in a way that takes into account human life, environmental protections, cost, and energy demand. If the industry, regulatory bodies, and government continue to collaborate on suitable CO2
applications internationally, the CCUS market will be able to thrive and support the transition to a net zero future.
Cancelled: $3.7 billion of US DOE awards
On 30 May, US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright announced the termination of 24 awards (listed right) issued by the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) under the previous administration, primarily consisting of carbon capture and sequestration and decarbonisation initiatives. The cancelled awards represented a total of over $3.7 billion in “taxpayer-funded financial assistance.”
After a “thorough and individualised financial review of each award,” DOE found that these projects “failed to advance the energy needs of the American people, were not economically viable and would not generate a positive return on investment of taxpayer dollars,” Secretary Wright said.
Of the 24 awards cancelled, nearly 70% (16 of the 24 projects) were signed between election day and 20 January.
“While the previous administration failed to conduct a thorough financial review before signing away billions of taxpayer dollars, the Trump administration is doing our due diligence to ensure we are utilising taxpayer dollars to strengthen our national security, bolster affordable, reliable energy sources and advance projects that generate the highest possible return on investment,” said Secretary Wright. “Today, we are acting in the best interest of the American people by cancelling these 24 awards.”
DOE had previously issued a Secretarial Memorandum entitled, Ensuring responsibility for financial assistance, which outlined DOE’s policy for “evaluating financial assistance on a case-by-case basis to identity waste of taxpayer dollars, protect America’s national security and advance President Trump’s commitment to unleash affordable, reliable and secure energy for the American people.” DOE says it used this review process to evaluate each of the 24 awards and determine that they “did not meet the economic, national security or energy security standards necessary to sustain DOE’s investment.”
Cancelled US DOE awards Recipient
Sutter CCUS, LLC Award
execution date 12/31/2024
Calpine Texas CCUS Holdings, LLC 12/31/2024 Research Triangle Institute PPL Corporation TDA Research, Inc.
Brimstone Energy, Inc. Technip
Orsted Star P2X LLC Gallo Glass Company
United States Pipe and Foundry Company, LLC
Heidelberg Materials US, Inc. Libbey Glass LLC
Skyven Technologies, Inc. Kraft Heinz Food Co
Eastman Chemical Company Diageo Americas Supply, Inc. Sublime Systems
National Cement Company of California, Inc.
Exxon Mobil Corporation Nippon Dynawave Packaging Kohler Co
Nevada Gold Mines, LLC
12/31/2024 12/31/2024 12/31/2024 12/31/2024 12/16/2024 12/9/2024 12/4/2024
American Cast Iron Pipe Company 11/25/2024 9/17/2024 8/12/2024
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Incorporated
9/9/2024 1/6/2025 1/14/2025
11/15/2024 9/12/2024 12/16/2024 11/4/2024
12/4/2024 12/17/2024
12/16/2024 10/22/2024 10/31/2024
Total Award Amount ($)
Location
$270 000 000 Yuba City, CA $270 000 000 Baytown, TX $4 304 715 Vicksburg, MI $72 016 473 Louisville, KY $49 032 200 Gillette, WY $189 000 000 TBD
$200 000 000 Gulf Coast Location TBD $99 000 000 Chambers County, TX $75 000 000 Gallo Modesto, CA $75 000 000 Birmingham, AL
$75 500 000 Bessemer, AL $500 000 000 Louisiana
$45 133 953 Toledo, OH $57 263 726 Zanesville, OH $15 316 593 Medina, NY
$170 881 459 10 Locations $375 000 000 Longview, TX
$75 000 000 Shelbyville, KY & Plainfield, IL $86 907 197 Holyoke, MA
$500 000 000 Lebec, CA $331 885 548 Baytown, TX
$46 594 001 Longview, WA $51 200 000 Casa Grande, AZ $95 000 000 Eureka County, NV
Total $3 729 035 865
Visualisation of Calpine’s Baytown CCS+CCGT plan. The recent DOE award for this project has been terminated
www.modernpowersystems.com | June 2025 | 29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45
