Suitability of Performing a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Joseph Giove (US DOE)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Suitability of Performing a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Joseph Giove (US DOE)"

Sarah Lawrence
5 years ago
Views:

1 Suitability of Performing a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Analysis on the CSLF-Recognized Project Portfolio Joseph Giove (US DOE)

2 History of the assignment Slide #25 from Clinton Foster s presentation at the PIRT Meeting in Pau, France March 2010

3 What are TRLs and how are they used? Source: NASA

4 Actions taken and Results A sub-group was formed to investigate how to accomplish the assignment Lars Ingolf Eide (Norway), Klaas van Alphen (GCCSI), Clinton Foster (Australia), John Panek (Secretariat), Joe Giove (USA) A series of s and a tele-conference were held Major Difficulties were found with the NASA TRL Methodology It does not take into account cost, only technical issues It does not account for risk The timeline for numerical advancement is not uniform While the criteria are objective, the assessments are subjective It was unanimously determined that doing a TRL assessment of the CSLF recognized Projects consistent with the NASA methodology would not be appropriate or helpful. We therefore explored the possibility of doing a more simple TRL assessment

5 Actions taken and Results However, Major Difficulties were found in conducting that assessment as well Definitions would need to be clarified and even the best definitions do not fit all CSLF projects First-of-a-kind commercial? Gorgon may be first among CSLF projects but Sleipner, In Salah, Weyburn and Snøhvit are earlier but similar projects What is the definition of commercial? Size? Full Chain or Integrated? Only industry funding? Etc In Salah, Weyburn and CO2STORE Only monitoring parts are CSLF projects, both have large R&D funding. Are these then commercial? Would the classification be based on a present assessment or the project s full potential? Many projects could classify as full scale but this is in future phases, presently without financial commitments What level of commitment and funding is required for a certain classification and how do you gauge those levels?

6 Actions taken and Results Some CSLF projects fit more than one class CO2STORE - Combination of desk study (modeling) of many reservoirs and monitoring on full scale of one (Sleipner) CASTOR - Combination desk study for storage and sub-scale pilot for capture CCS Northern Netherlands - Large-scale regional plan may fall into more than one class depending on interpretation Some CSLF projects do not easily fit in any class CO2GEONET - is a network or capacity building effort Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnerships The demonstrations are done by each partner, not by the partnership Who would be the users of the assessment? What is the added value of doing this assessment? Even despite all of the difficulties listed above and others not listed, an attempt was made by Lars Ingolf Eide (Norway) to do a scaled-down TRL Analysis.

7 One example of a subjective classification of CSLF Projects In the example the classes are: Desk study = FEED, feasibility, site characterization w/o data collection, development and/or application of computer tools Enabling = Equipment and/or methodology that, alone or in combination with associated technologies, provides the means to generate giant leaps in performance and capabilities of the user Lab/bench scale = less than 500kWt or 1.000t CO2/year. May be outdorrs Sub-scale pilot = less than 50MWt or t CO2/year Full-scale demonstration = more than 50MW and/or more than t CO2/year in any combination of capture, transport and storage Large-scale integrated demonstration = more than 100MWt and/or more than t CO2/year, full transport solution and storage, incl. permitting and public outreach, more than 20% public funding Commercial = initiated by industry to reduce emissions from a producing plant, less than 20% public funding If a project is phased the classification is made according to already funded phases, not what might come.

8 One example of a subjective classification of CSLF Projects

9 Final Conclusion After analysis of the data, it was unanimously determined that performing such an analysis would be: very complex, the results would be argumentative and difficult to interpret, and most importantly - the end product would not be useful or helpful in contribution to the existing analysis available on the projects It was therefore unanimously decided by all group members not to pursue further It was therefore unanimously decided by all group members not to pursue further the analysis of CSLF Recognized projects through use of a TRL Methodology

MEETING SUMMARY Projects Interaction and Review Team (PIRT) Meeting Venice, Italy 22 April 2018 Prepared by the CSLF Secretariat

DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY Projects Interaction and Review Team (PIRT) Meeting Venice, Italy 22 April 2018 Prepared by the CSLF Secretariat LIST OF ATTENDEES PIRT Active Members Australia: Canada: France: Italy: