MAPPING CCUS TECHNOLOGICAL TRAJECTORIES AND BUSINESS MODELS: THE CASE OF CO 2 DISSOLVED

Transcription

1 MAPPING CCUS TECHNOLOGICAL TRAJECTORIES AND BUSINESS MODELS: THE CASE OF CO 2 DISSOLVED NICOLAS BEFORT, REGARDS, U N I V E R S I T Y O F R E I M S C H A M P A G N E A R D E N N E XAVIER GALIÈGUE, L E O, U N I V E R S I T Y O F O R L É A N S AUDREY LAUDE, R E G A R D S, U N I V E R S I T Y O F R E I M S C H A M P A G N E - A R D E N N E 9 th Trondheim Conference on CO 2 Capture, Transport and Storage, th June 2017

2 OUTLINE 1) Motivation 2) CCS technologies in Roadmap Agendas 3) Which business models for CCS? 4) Emerging Technology and Path dependency: from EOR to CCUS 5) An alternative CCUS design: the CO 2 -DISSOLVED project 2

3 MOTIVATION (1/2) o CCS should play a prominent role in energy transition (IPCC, IEA) o CCS development depends mainly on the deployment of large scale demonstrators, o For learning-by-doing sake o That has been obtained mainly using EOR technologies o But a wide range portfolio of demonstrators is also necessary o With a high technological variety at each step of the of capture transport storage chain, o There is a trade-off between learning by replication and learning-bydiversity (Reiner, 2015) o The ability to obtain feasible business models through cost-reductions depends crucialy on CCS operators to manage this trade-off. 3

4 MOTIVATION (2/2) o CCUS appears as a mean to reach a further step for its economic feasability: o by giving various uses to CO 2 in CCUS technologies like EOR o or building synergies with others technologies o An example of such a synergy is to combine CCS and Geothermal energy generation, like the CO 2 -DISSOLVED technology Designed for small or medium emitters With a far lower energy penalty, thanks to the geothermal energy With a Local storage of the CO 2 (no pipelines) Dissolving CO 2 in brine rather than injecting at supercritical state is safer and could be better socially accepted 4

5 2-CCS IN THE ROADMAPS: A REMINDER All different roadmaps (IPCC, AIEA) devote a key role for CCS in the sustainable transition : CCS should contribute to 14% of total emission reduction through 2050 (IEA, 2012) if implemented on a ideal agenda: with a prominent role dedicated to CCS on coal power and a rising part for other industrial sources and BCCS Full CCUS deployment should mobilize in the long run a wider range of emitters and technologies 5

6 CCS ROADMAPS AND TECHNOLOGICAL DIVERSITY To sustain energy transition, the CCS roadmaps should conciliate two opposite objectives: 1. Developing first large scale demonstrators in order to experiment learning by doing 2. Preserving a large portfolio of competing technologies, at each step of the technology: capture, transport, storage. This combinatory aspect of CCS is one of its limits, but it allows also to preserve a kind of technological diversity. As an emerging technology, CCS is confronted to this trade-off between learning by replication, or by diversity (Reiner, 2015) Journées du laboratoire REGARDS

7 3 WHAT BUSINESS MODEL FOR CCS? According to the Herzog survey (2016), a sustainable business model should have the ability to conciliate: A demand pull, i.e. the ability to give an use to carbon as an input A technological push, i.e. technologies able to capture carbon as an output at a reasonable cost And a combination of : Public financial supports, Business drivers, Regulatory schemes and/or mandates able to impose capture ready plants.. That could partially offset the lack of economic value of CO 2 by command and control measures, or by enforcing cap and trade market.. at a high carbon price Journées du laboratoire REGARDS

8 WHAT BUSINESS MODEL? FROM EOR TO CCS By now, only EOR technologies have had the ability to support such a business model, thanks to: A carbon source at a competing price: mainly gas separation, but also fertilizer, coal gasification, and others sources Easy access carbon sinks: depleted oil wells giving an use for carbon as a valuable input A market price for this input Convenient transport facilities when carbon source and sink are not in the same vicinity. And the existence of operators at each step of the CCS chain value mainly oil and gas companies, with their equipment producers and subcontractors, which had the ability to implement and monitor all the EOR value chain. Journées du laboratoire REGARDS

9 4 EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND PATH DEPENDENCY: THE EOR LEGACY CCS technologies are dominated by the design of EOR technologies, which created a kind of path dependency: technologies of first movers are adopted in a first time, And once adopted they will be chosen by new users, in a self-enforcing process. Then EOR technologis influences the design of CCS technologies But extending EOR technologies to other carbon sources and sinks rises numerous drawbacks, mainly : Capture technologies are various, costly, and depend on carbon source Storage on a large scale should be done in saline aquifer, which integrity is not as good as that of depleted oil wells. Source and carbon sinks could be distant, then transport should be costly and rise some acceptability issues Operators are different: carbon sources are power plant, industrial sites and bioenergy producers, and they are not vertically integrated with their storage facilities. Journées du laboratoire REGARDS

10 CCS, STILL AN IMAGINARY LOW CARBON TECHNOLOGY (REINER, 2015)? In 2016,a few CCS Pilots over the world were able to present the full chain of a CCS from capture on a power plant to carbon storage in an aquifer: E.g. Carbon is either captured at a low cost, or used in an EOR process. (Herzog, 2016) So is CCS still an imaginary technology, as coined by Reiner (2015)? CCS R&D projects, (Herzog, 2016) Journées du laboratoire REGARDS

11 ENLARGING TECHNOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: FROM CCS TO CCUS A way to offset the shortcomings of CCS is to find new use to Carbon, e.g. to give it an economic value as an input, as in EOR technologies. What are the advantages of this solution? It gives carbon an economic value, that can be priced on the market it gives a legitimation to the capture process, and decrease its costs. But it raises some other issues What is CCUS mitigation potential on a large scale? Is it a niche or an alternative to CCS? What about its legitimation as a mitigation process? Would the carbon used definitively stored? Or could it be released in the atmosphere sooner or later? Journées du laboratoire REGARDS

12 5 AN ALTERNATIVE CCUS DESIGN: THE CO 2 - DISSOLVED PROJECT New method for capture and storage CO 2 is dissolved into the brine The enriched brine is injected in a saline aquifer, by an injection well But the amount of CO 2 stored is limited by solubility of CO 2 into the brine Combined with geothermal energy The brine is removed by the production well for heat purpose The heat is used locally No more energy penalty, safer, better adapted to small or medium emitters 12

13 CO 2 -DISSOLVED, A NEW CCUS TECHNOLOGY? Using a geothermal facility to capture CO 2 means that carbon storage appears as a by-product of heat generation.. But carbon is still stored by itself, and could not be considered as an input. A first evaluation has been made on a bioenergy facility, on a sugarbeet refinery located in Artenay, France. It leads to a lower avoided carbon price than a similar conventional CCS process: /t compared to /t It is better adapted to small sources, in a decentralized energy system. Journées du laboratoire REGARDS

14 FIRST RESULTS FROM THE CO 2 DISSOLVED TECHNOLOGY: THE ARTENAY CASE The Artenay Case Study has some specific characteristics A Bioenergy carbon source, coming from the fermentation and distillation steps of Bioethanol production from sugar beets. A small carbon source, compared to Conventional CCS (between 70 to 130 Kton/year) An intermittent flow rate, concentrated over around 4 months It results in: A partial capture process (25% to 60% rate) An energy penalty (15 to 19%), due to the intermittence of the flow rate which requires the use of an additonal energy source A lower avoided carbon price ( 39-72/ton) by comparison with a supercritical capture and injection technology ( /ton ) Journées du laboratoire REGARDS

15 FIRST LESSONS FROM THE CO 2 DISSOLVED ECONOMIC ASSESMENT The Economic viabililty of a pilot is highly site-dependant, it depends on technical and economical factors, namely: On the Capture Technology: partial, or full? Using amine or another capture technology (PI-CO 2 Technology)? On the Sources of CO 2 and Geothermal Energy What is the volume of CO 2 source? What is its purity? What is the energy potential of the Geothermal Well? On the Flow rates of CO 2 and Geothermal Energy Is the flow rate of CO2 Constant, or intermittent over the year? How does evolve the injection rate over the life time of the project, by comparison with the Geothermal Energy potential of the Well? Journées du laboratoire REGARDS

16 TOWARDS A BEST CASE STUDY An optimized case should Require: A source of Pure CO 2 and/or an Innovative Capture technology (P-I CO 2 technology) A constant flow rate of CO 2? A perfect matching between the Geothermal Energy potential and the energy needs of the capture and storage process That could leads to: A lower avoided carbon price A Higher Capture rate Journées du laboratoire REGARDS

17 CONCLUSION Enlarging CCS portfolio solutions is a crucial issue, that could allow to find alternative business models to conventional CCS Combining CCS and geothermal energy like the CO 2 -DISSOLVED technology is a way to do it CO 2 -DISSOLVED is mostly dedicated to small or medium emitters, and appears as a complementary technology to CCS.. Which could be better adapted to a new sociotechnical system, grounded on renewable and on a decentralized energy system. 17

18 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION Acknowledgement This work has been funded by the ANR (French National Research Agency) In collaboration with : BRGM, Geogreen, CFG Services, BGR, and Partnering in Innovation 18

19 CO 2 DISSOLVED BUSINESS MODEL CO 2 DISSOLVED technology can be considered from two points of view. From the CCS approach, CO 2 -DISSOLVED is a complementary technology to CCS for small and middle CO 2 sources (between 10 and 150 kt/year) This emitters account for an average of 24% of total French emissions. From the Geothermal energy standpoint, CO 2 is an additional revenue Some competing project, like the CarbFix project in Finland, or the ENeRG project in USA, provide valuable results but in different fields from the CO 2 DISSOLVED project. Journées du laboratoire REGARDS

20 A FIRST ECONOMIC APPARAISAL OF THE CO 2 DISSOLVED TECHNOLOGY A techno-economic analysis on a French bioethanol factory, using Real option Modelling Set of Hypothesis and Modelling of Uncertainties Results : Probability of investment (example) AVERAGE Gas Price Carbon price HIGH Gas Price Carbon price Operational lifetime and storage efficiency have considerable effects on investment. 20 The probability of investment depends on carbon and gas prices, and trigger investment decision in

21 FROM CCS TO CO 2 DISSOLVED: CCS ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS The following table sum up the different characteristics of alternative CCS Technologies. 21

22 TOWARDS A BETTER DESIGN Better results should be obtained with a better design of the project, with: A constant flow of CO 2 rather an intermittent flow A lower source of CO 2, which could increase the rate of CO 2 capture and decrease the energy consumption of the process To sum up, the technical and economic efficiency of the project could be dramatically improved by a better matching between the CO 2 source and its well capacity On the contrary, full capture would need to use the P-I Technology with a third well, that will increase the cost of avoided CO 2 So the general outcome of these different factors should be evaluated on an optimized model. It will evidently lead to a lower avoided cost for partial capture than for a full capture. Journées du laboratoire REGARDS