Welcome to Alfa Laval's state-of-the-art Test and Training Centre here in Aalborg, Denmark. For more information about the Centre and our ongoing activities, we'll include a link on the same page that you find this broadcast. Among other exciting developments, this facility will play a major role in the development of today's topic: onboard carbon capture. In this webinar, our guests will give their views on the role of onboard carbon capture in shipping's drive towards decarbonization. Let me first introduce today's speakers. We are delighted to have Dr. Vishnu Prakash join us. Vishnu leads Data Science and Decarbonization projects at Stena. Welcome. And joining Vishnu is Alfa Laval's own Jeroen Rosengarten. Jeroen is head of business development for our Heat & Gas Systems Business Unit. Welcome to you both. Thank you. If I could start looking at the big picture, can I ask you both about the overall decarbonization strategies in play, at Alfa Laval and at Stena? And maybe I start with yourself Vishnu. Thank you, Adam. And and thank you, Jeroen, for having me here. It's very nice to be at your test facility. Stena is sort of a broad shipping group. We operate and own everything from ferries to roro's to tankers and drill ships. So to say we have one strategy is sort of simplifying it. We have broad and diverse strategies that suit every specific segment, and the vessels that are operating in them. Each, of course, have their own unique challenges and opportunities. We as a group are actually quite agnostic to the type of solutions that we would consider but we always try to make sure that they are practical, plausible and most importantly, commercially viable. Carbon capture, however, especially on board vessels, has largely been an unknown in the industry. I think it really came into play when we did a feasibility study with the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative a few years ago. And that study unlocked a lot of insights, both on the technology, but also in the economics of carbon capture when applied to shipping. So now I think it's really an option that, for decarbonization, is gaining a lot of interest in the shipping industry, especially within the last year. And we see it really as a complement that could help us reduce emissions, while allowing future lower zero carbon fuels to mature, and also for the required infrastructure and supply chains to come into play. And Jeroen, maybe if you can give us some insight into Alfa Laval's view on the decarbonization picture and carbon capture? Yes, of course. At Alfa Laval, we're developing a full range of decarbonization solutions that enable our customers, irrelevant of the fuels they use, to reduce their fuel consumption by energy efficiency measures, but also lower the emission footprint, no matter which fuel they are operating. Onboard carbon capture could be one of those solutions and part of the decarbonization toolbox. But we think it's too early to make that call. You mentioned it's in the early stages, but what is the current status? What is the current level of maturity when we talk about carbon capture around the world today? Well, carbon capture has been applied in the oil and gas industry for decades. For enhanced oil recovery, where basically the CO2 that has been captured is re-injected into empty or nearly empty oil and gas fields to increase the yield, the production yield of a given asset. So it's a technology that has been used on land. It has the highest technology readiness level. However, applying it on board of a vessel, that's a different topic. So with that in mind, what do we need to think about when we talk about a carbon capture installation? What does it consist of? What are the processes that ship owners need to consider in terms of how it impacts their onboard operations? Quite a few. If you look from the process point of view, there are four types of post-combustion processes, being chemical absorption, adsorption, cryogenic and membrane technology. The chemical absorption and the cryogenic processes. They have the highest technical readiness level, so could be deployed quite soon. If we look at those two specific technologies, we see that the cryogenic process consumes much more energy than than the chemical absorption process. And as such, we think that the chemical absorption process is currently the best suited to be applied on board of vessels. If you look at the process, it consists basically of three process steps. First of all, it's exhaust gas cleaning where you basically clean your exhaust gases to a higher level of cleanliness before you start capturing carbon. The actual carbon capture process is absorbing the CO2 by using amine solvents from the exhaust gas and boiling it off again into a stripping column. Finally, you need to liquefy and store your CO2, which leaves the carbon capture process in a gaseous stage, and store it temporarily in a liquid phase, in low or medium pressure tanks until you are arriving at your destination where you can discharge your CO2. What we see as Alfa Laval is that across these three process steps, thermal management and exhaust gas cleaning are key for success. And these are also the areas in which Alfa Laval is a known expert. And also for this process, we have many key components already available in our portfolio. It's clear there are many options, many pathways, many combinations of options to get shipping to its decarbonization targets. Is it a given that onboard carbon capture will be part of that package, part of those options? If I may start, I think, Adam, that it's really too early to be able to say that. Especially from a commercial point of view, there are some milestones that we still need to reach in order to really make carbon capture a favourable option compared to other alternatives. The feasibility study that we did a few years ago showed, that we could do carbon capture at a cost of around €250 per tonne of CO2, capturing about 50% of the carbon going down to about €200 per tonne of CO2 if we were to capture 90%. But this was, however, done on a Suezmax crude tanker which did not have some of the ideal characteristics to make that process much more efficient. For instance, there wasn't as much waste heat as we would have liked that we can then use to power the system and the processes without having to burn extra fuel. And what we ended up with was was a solution where we got to 50 or 90% capture, but required burning a little bit of extra fuel. The vessel did also do very long voyages, so it was sailing 21 days or more at sea. So we wanted to be able to do 50 to 90% capture with those constraints in mind. And that raised two costs very rapidly. One was, of course, the liquefaction system had to be much larger and much more effective. And also the storage tanks for the CO2 required to be bigger and more powerful to maintain that amount of CO2. So those raised the capital cost to the system very much. But we think some of these constraints can actually be improved. And we believe those abatement costs that we estimated are actually quite on the higher end of what they should be. And especially if we consider the benefits to reducing the cost due to standardization or economies of scale as these sort of systems become more and more common place, there could be a massive difference in the abatement costs we end up with for an Nth of a kind system. However, I think and we think that we probably still need some sort of carbon pricing to facilitate the business case, regardless of how far we can get the economics to work. Equally, I think the role of carbon capture and its importance depends on the alternatives that end up being available, especially in terms of alternative fuels and the investments and retrofits that might be needed and the costs associated with those. Where we see carbon capture still having a very important role is if the costs for and the scarcity of those alternatives become very high, then even at a $200 or €200 per tonne CO2 abatement level, carbon capture could actually be a viable solution that could be part of the tool set. So it's still premature today. I think that we need to do a lot more analysis to compare it fairly across alternatives until we get to a point where we can say where it sits. Okay, so from a commercial point of view, I think, some uncertainties, some work still to do, but we're on the path. From a technical point of view, Jeroen? Well as I just explained, on land it's been applied by the oil and gas industry for decades, but applying it on board of a ship is not so simple. The exhaust gases must be cleaned to a much higher level. To such a level that there's hardly any sulphur and particulate matter. And also your NOx needs to be reduced significantly aswell. Further, we need additional fuel consumed, to provide the heat for the boiling off of the CO2, and electricity to liquefy and store the CO2 temporarily. All this equipment requires quite a lot of space, and in combination, especially when the journey increases, the size of the storage tank increases, it results in additional weight, and this has a negative impact also on the cargo capacity of a vessel. From a macro environmental point of view, we also look at regulatory aspects. Currently we see the IMO not considering carbon capture as a means to reduce the carbon footprint of vessels. Although several flag states and NGOs opted for its acceptance at the MEPC 79, the decision on this, to include it as one of the means, is not expected soon. Further, on the infrastructure point of view, we see a lot of developments ongoing, especially in the northern part of Europe, where we have projects like Northern Lights, Greensand and Porthos. But these projects, they are developed as regional hubs, to sequester CO2 that has been captured elsewhere, from point source emitters. And this CO2 is transported to these hubs, sequestration hubs as a cargo, by means of liquid CO2 carriers. However, offloading CO2 that has been captured during the voyage of commercial shipping, would require a dense network of offloading hubs which also are individually connected to sequestration locations. And so, so far, we haven't identified projects as such, unfortunately. Finally, from a legal perspective, the London Protocol currently prohibits cross border transport of CO2 for sub-seabed sequestration in other countries. But luckily recently, an agreement has been reached between Belgium and Denmark for the Greensand project, which might create a precedent for shipping liquid CO2 as a cargo. However, whether this will be applied for CO2 that has been captured during the voyage of a commercial ship, that is still the question. And finally, an important question to you both about the activities ongoing within Stena, within Alfa Laval. Can you maybe elaborate a little bit on specifically, what's happening at the moment with the development of onboard carbon capture within Stena and within Alfa Laval? Vishnu, maybe first? Sure. At Stena, we're always eager and in search of ideas and solutions that could help our decarbonization, but also could put something back into the industry and help the industry decarbonize. And when we looked at carbon capture, we really found a gap, both in the knowledge, and the research and analysis that's out there. So we started with a feasibility study a couple of years ago, and then have evolved from that onwards. But carbon capture is and has been very close to the hearts of our customers, and we actually believe that it will continue to be a key item for in the long term as well. Especially if we can reuse the CO2 to make synthetic fuels or even capture the CO2 from green fuels and then get net negative emissions. Following the feasibility study, we have now started a project together with Alfa Laval and the Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonization and the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative to look at building and putting a carbon capture plant on board one of our tankers. But none of this really would be possible without the eager and competent, curious, partners like Alfa Laval, as well as our eager customers and ambitious management group who supports these projects. So I especially and and we, as a company feel very privileged to be working on these types of projects collaboratively. Thank you for the compliment, Vishnu. Within Alfa Laval, we started the journey of onboard carbon capture with a test in one of our PureSOx scrubbers, in January last year in Japan, together with the National Maritime Research Institute to see whether a scrubber could capture CO2, and it did! Following a press release, and the enormous amount of attention that has been drawn from the market, we've developed a roadmap to understand the challenges of onboard carbon capture, because we all confirmed that they are there. To really understand those challenges, we are currently participating in a feasibility study in the Maersk McKinney Moller Centre, on retrofitting carbon capture on board of different types of vessels and, as mentioned by Vishnu, we are part of the consortium with Stena, OGCI and GCMD, in developing a large onboard carbon capture installation, and that project is called ReMarCCAbLE. These activities will allow Alfa Laval to understand the challenges and enable us to make a decision on whether we want to productize the solution for onboard carbon capture or not. And we want to make that decision in the coming two years. Thank you Vishnu, thank you, Jeroen. Some excellent insights. So thank you for sharing your views on onboard carbon capture. And thank you to the audience and the viewers for attending this latest Alfa Laval Marine Talks session. Please be informed this is a prerecorded session, which will now continue with a live Q&A. Good morning, everybody. Good afternoon, everyone around the globe. Thank you for attending the Alfa Laval Webinar on onboard carbon capture. With me, I have Vishnu Prakash from Stena and Geertje van Duijne from Alfa Laval. We thank you very much for your attendance, and we are also curious about your opinion on onboard carbon capture. And as such, we have two questions and we would appreciate it highly if you could answer those questions. And first of all, is your opinion about the role of onboard carbon capture in the decarbonization journey of the shipping industry. And secondly, we are curious to know what, in your opinion, are the major difficulties in applying this technology as a solution to decarbonize? I'll give you a couple of minutes, and following the poll, we will start answering the questions, so please feel free to raise them, if there's anything coming up. Actually, one of the first questions I see is an easy one. Will the video and slides be shared? Yes, absolutely. We're recording this session, and afterwards we will share it on alfalaval.com. I see we still have some answers coming in on the poll. Let's give it a few more moments. Meanwhile, I see another question in the chat. Jeroen, can I start with you? Since carbon capture actually reduces the CO2 emission in the atmosphere, why is it that IMO doesn't consider its use in the carbon emission index? Well, thank you Alberto for your question. I guess that mainly has to do with the fact that carbon capture on its own, although it's proven at on the land based applications, is not yet a proven technology on board of vessels. Typically, technology needs to be demonstrated, and as such, we see a lot of initiatives in the industry where technology is being demonstrated in terms of pilot or demonstration projects. Together with Stena, Alfa Laval is also participating in the project called ReMarCCAbLE. Not sure if you have anything to add on that one Vishnu? Yeah, thanks, Jeroen. I could also mention that I think the regulatory framework for carbon capture at the IMO is just a matter of time. There were quite a few proposals by a lot of countries and also a lot of the institutions that are in the IMO just at the last MEPC meeting in December, where they were proposing on how to account for carbon capture, especially on carbon that was captured on board a vessel. So I think regulative framework is in development, and it will mature by the time that some of these solutions are starting to become on the water. Thank you both. I think we are slowing down on the poll answers. Maybe we can start with the first poll and we will broadcast the results Let's see, what do you believe will be the role of onboard carbon capture in the maritime industry? I see that 10% believe there will be a limited role due to technical feasibility and 17% due to financial feasibility. About one third say reduce emission intensity of existing fuel oil and LNG vessels to fulfil company reduction targets or regulatory compliance. And another third say longer term use of capture with net zero fuels and reuse of green CO2, to achieve net negative emissions. So what do you think of this result? Vishnu, would you like to go first or shall I give our opinion? Go ahead, Jeroen. Well, we recognize this, definitely. The industry is perceiving onboard carbon capture as one of the solutions to overcome the transition towards the future fuels when they are commercially and in sufficient quantity available, but also one of those future fuels, methanol, is still emitting CO2. If you are operating on methanol or even green, you can capture that CO2. And if you're operating on green methanol, you could even become carbon negative. So also for that future fuel, carbon capture is perceived and considered as one of the technologies to maybe even reach negative carbon footprint levels. If I could add to that, I think it's really nice to see and I think the polls reflects our view as well that it is or could be a solution for existing ships, especially as the other alternative fuels and the infrastructure haven't matured yet. And we also see as in when, synthetic fuels and green fuels start to become more available and produced at a larger scale, the use of CO2, or the requirements for CO2 becoming much greater. So, it's good to see that's being reflected in the industry and that the knowledge and awareness is growing. Good, thank you both. Then let's take a look at the second poll, So I shall broadcast the results of that one as well. And that's the question: What are the three most significant risks or challenges of onboard carbon capture? The biggest risk people see, is the the large footprint, additional weight and the possibility of cargo loss, and then also the amount of extra energy and the limited infrastructure are the sort of top three answers. Though too expensive, and no framework are also both very close. Vishnu, maybe you want to start with this one. What do you think? How do you see this? Sure, these are all challenges that we are working through in the project that Jeroen and I mentioned, that we're now conducting together with GCMD and OGCI. We are working very hard to try and solve the additional energy requirements, trying to find an optimum where we can maximize the amount of CO2 captured at minimum cost. And I know there was another question about the CAPEX estimates, in the Q&A. So maybe I could sort of relate to that. The the initial costs that we were looking at for a medium range products and chemical tanker, including installation, is around the $8-10 million mark, which is comparable, if not cheaper than converting the vessel to alternative fuels or to a dual fuel engine. But this is also a first of a kind system estimate on cost. And also the first of a kind estimate on how much CO2 we can capture. At this point, we were looking at around 30-40% capture. And if some of you remember, back in 2018, 2019, scrubbers were being quoted at $8-9 million each, and now they've dropped to 1-2 million. So we do see a potential for a rapid decrease in the CAPEX of these types of systems, should it become a solution that both the IMO accepts, and also from an accounting point of view, but also, from a practical point of view, where we see owners and others jumping on board. Thank you, Vishnu. Then let's take another look at the questions. Let's see. There's a lot of questions coming in, some very technical. Shall I answer the question from Florian? Yes. Please go ahead. Florian, good morning or good afternoon. I'm not sure where you're located, but thanks for attending. And thanks for your question. We are in the process of designing systems connected to ReMarCCAbLE. and we have not really clear parameters yet as we speak about the actual quality of the CO2. So currently, we're looking at flows and temperatures and pressures. I don't know, from the top of my head, this data. But there is a variety between 90% quality up to food grade quality so both can be achieved with the chemical absorption process. I hope this answers your question where possible. Thanks, Jeroen. Then we have a question from Frouke. You were talking about a feasibility study together with Stena etc. When would that be completed, and the results provided? Should I answer that? So we did do a feasibility study, a desktop paper study a few years ago, together with the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative that I mentioned during the video. That is already available. And you can download it online. Perhaps we can provide a link somewhere after the webinar. Following that, we are doing a practical study where we will design and build an actual carbon capture plant, as Jeroen mentioned, that will go on one of our medium range tankers. We are getting close to phase two of that project in the next few months, but we expect, all goes well and knock on wood, that we will have the installation done sometime early next year, which would then be followed by some sea trials and other analysis after which we will put out some information following the trials. Great. Thanks. Then there's a question. There are technologies, solutions that also use, I think this is magnesium, and managed to store the captured CO2 in a solid waste that can be stored or discharged overboard. Do you have any comment or feedback on subject technologies? Not in detail, but we do know, to absorb CO2 in that matter, you would need a chemical substance that requires a huge amount of CO2 to manufacture. So basically, you're creating additional CO2, with the exhaust gases, with the CO2 that is emitted. So we are not sure whether that is the right way in reducing carbon footprint on a global perspective. Secondly, discharging CO2 overboard in the sea, in whatever state, we don't know yet whether that is the right approach, and we don't know yet either whether this is an approved way of storing CO2 to get CO2 rights under EU ETS. So, currently, we are not actively looking at this solution to get rid of the captured CO2. And on top of that, CO2 will also become more and more a commodity and will act as a feed stock, for instance, for the future fuels like methanol or sustainable air fuel. But you could see also, CO2 becoming more and more, being used in commodities for other industries. So it will have a value in the in the long term. Great. Thank you Jeroen. And then I see we have time for one more question. I would like to ask this to you Vishnu. Could you give more information about CO2 capture with a scrubber? Yes, of course. Sulphur is a contaminant that affects the ability for the amines to capture CO2, so it interferes with the process. So ideally, you want to have very little or no sulphur in the flue gas for the capture system to work more efficiently. So, it does work better when there is a scrubber onboard that we take the flue gas out from post scrubbing of the sulphur before it goes into the capture process. Or it's better to use low-sulphur fuels or even fuels that contain no sulphur, in order to improve the process. Clear, Jeroen, you want to add anything to that? No, I fully agree with Vishnu. Great. And I see we have a lot of questions that still haven't been answered. We will get back to you via email with your question to answer your question. So, first of all, thank you everyone for participating and listening in and for your great questions. Then, thank you very much, Vishnu, for taking the time to join us. And Jeroen, of course, also. Thank you very much. Thank you.