Biomass Energy: Sustainability Issues and BECCS

Transcription

1 Biomass Energy: Sustainability Issues and BECCS Eric D. Larson, Ph.D. Research Professor and Head Energy Systems Analysis Group Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment Princeton University, USA Bioenergy Workshop: Advanced Technologies and Sustainability Issues 1 August 2018 Instituto de Energia e Ambiente (IEE) University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

2 Dr. Eric D. Larson Biosketch Larson leads the Energy Systems Analysis Group within Princeton University s Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment. He is also affiliated with the Princeton s Woodrow Wilson Public Policy School s Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy Program and with the Princeton Environmental Institute. He is also a Senior Scientist with the non-profit organization, Climate Central. Larson s research interests intersect engineering, environmental science, economics, and public policy. His work is aimed at identifying sustainable, engineering-based solutions to major energy-related environmental problems, especially global climate change, and at informing relevant public policy debates. A recent research emphasis has been on the design and techno-economic assessment of advanced processes for production of clean transportation fuels and electricity from carbonaceous sources with CO 2 capture and storage. He also has been collaborating with ecologists at the University of Minnesota and Colorado State University to better understand the potential of biomass-based energy options to deliver negative carbon emission transportation fuels in the US. And, he is currently helping to create a global, multi-disciplinary network of collaborators seeking to understand how rapidly the world s energy system can be decarbonized. Larson has co-authored ~90 peer-reviewed papers and 255 publications in total. He maintains long-term collaborations on energy and sustainability with colleagues in China (Tsinghua University) and in Australia (University of Queensland). He holds degrees in mechanical engineering from Washington University in St. Louis (BSE, 1979) and from the University of Minnesota (PhD, 1983).

3 Key features of biomass among renewables Only carbon-bearing renewable energy, so potentially especially valuable for conversion to high energy-density liquid fuels. Offers the opportunity for negative GHG emissions: If CO 2 is captured and stored below ground during biomass production and use for energy, then resulting energy has removed CO 2 from the atmosphere. Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) may be an important option for stabilizing (or reducing) atmospheric CO 2 concentration. Perhaps the most contentious, and hence challenging, of renewable energy sources.

4 Outline Climate change risks and carbon emission budgets. The 2 C challenge: Do we really need negative emissions? Negative emissions technologies Underground CO 2 storage status and prospects. Bioenergy with CO 2 capture and storage (BECCS) in integrated assessment model emission scenarios. Summary and look ahead.

5 5

6 Warming is determined by cumulative emissions Human-induced warming CO 2 budget left to spend from 2016 for 2 o warming: 600 to 1,200 GtCO 2 Fossil fuel emissions today are ~40 Gt CO 2 /y ppm CO 2e Warming increases approx linearly with cumulative CO 2 emissions Graph based on IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to 5 th Assessment Report, For 2 o C CO 2 budget estimate, see Rogelj, et al., Differences between carbon budget estimates unraveled, Nature Climate Change, 24 Feb 2016.

7 Do we really need CCS? Carbon in global fossil fuel reserves and in IPCC RCP scenarios FF resources = 3x 13x reserves Allowable cumulative emissions, , for the four IPCC RCP scenarios. (mean values) Fossil Fuel Reserves Eventual temperature rise (mean) relative to pre-industrial 2 o C 3.2 o C 3.5 o C 5.7 o C How fast can the world shut down fossil fuel use?

8 Limiting climate change to safe level (< 2 o C) will require removing CO 2 from atmosphere Fuss et al., Nature Climate Change, 2014.

9 2DS requires starting CO 2 removal soon and building to > 15 GtCO 2 /y removal by 2100 [Intended Nationally Determined Contributions] (for 2 o C) Negative Emissions * Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters, The Trouble with Negative Emissions, Science, 14 Oct 2016

10 Negative Emissions Systems Sanchez, et al, Federal research, development, and demonstration priorities for carbon dioxide removal in the United States, Env. Res. Let., 13, 2018.

11 Upper-end? estimates of costs and global potentials for negative emissions 1200 Cost of CO 2 Removed, $/t Reforestation Accelerated weathering Direct air CO 2 capture and storage Ocean fertilization BNE: Biological Negative Emissions Biomass energy with CO 2 capture and storage (BECCS) 0 Ag soils, Best Mgmt Practices + frontier methods Cumulative CO 2 removed by 2100, Gt Sources: National Research Council, Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration, National Academies Press, Washington DC, Paustian K, Lehmann J, Ogle S, Reay D, Robertson GP, Smith P., Climate-smart soils, Nature, 532:49 57, 2016.

12 Expert (IPCC) opinion on Underground CO 2 storage High (66-90%) probability that global geological storage capacity is at least 2000 Gt CO 2. Fraction of injected CO 2 retained: 90-99% (very high) probability that retained fraction will be > 99% over 100 years 66-90% (high) probability that retained fraction will be > 99% over 1000 years CO 2 pipeline risks are comparable to, or less than, risks with hydrocarbon pipelines operating today. IPCC, Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, 2005.

13 Prospective deep sedimentary formation areas for CO 2 storage Highly Prospective Low to High Prospective Non Prospective Image source: J. Bradshaw and T. Dance (2004): Mapping geological storage prospectivity of CO 2 for the world s sedimentary basins and regional source to sink matching. Proceedings of the 7th Int l Conf. on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, 2004, Vancouver, Canada.

14 CCS projects in operation worldwide Norway: Sleipner CCS project, saline aquifer, 1 Million t/y CO 2 ( ). Norway: Snøhvit, under Norwegian sea, saline aquifer, < 0.7 Mt/y CO 2 ( ) USA/Canada: Synfuels CCS via EOR at Weyburn, 3Mt/y CO 2 ( ). USA: Kemper Co., Mississippi IGCC w/ccs via EOR, 3Mt/y CO 2. (built/not run) USA: Petra Nova coal CCS retrofit in Texas via EOR, 1.4Mt/y CO 2. ( ) USA: CO 2 capture from SMR for EOR in Texas, 3Mt CO 2. USA: Illinois ethanol-plant CCS, saline aquifer, 1Mt/y CO2. ( ) Canada: Quest oil sands CCS project, saline aquifer, 1Mt/y CO 2. Canada: Boundary Dam coal retrofit CCS via EOR, 1Mt/y CO 2. Brazil: Santos Basin Oil Field CCS via EOR, 1Mt/y CO 2. Algeria: In Salah gas stripped, saline aquifer, 1 Mt/y CO 2 ( ). UAE: Emirates Steel Industries CCS via EOR project (Phase 1), 0.8Mt/y CO 2. China: Jilin gas processing CCS via EOR demo, 0.3Mt/y CO 2. Japan: Tomakomai CCS, saline aquifer, 0.1Mt/y CO 2. (demo thru 2020) Additional projects in development Japan: Mikawa coal CCS retrofit, 0.15Mt/y CO 2. China: Yanchang CCS demo, 0.45MtCO 2.

15 BECCS carbon flows biomass upstream emissions biomass upstream emissions photosynthesis fuel combustion biomass vehicle emission tailpipe s fuel Production Facility flue gases Electricity coal upstream emissions Most 2 C scenarios coal assume BECCS for negative emissions. CO 2 storage char soil / roots Adapted from Larson, et al, Co-Production of Synfuels and Electricity from Coal + Biomass with Zero Net Carbon Emissions: An Illinois Case Study, Energy and Environmental Science, 3(1): 28-42, 2010.

16 Electricity Generating Cost with CO 2 Emissions Price 150 Levelized Cost of Electricity (2012$ / MWh e ) Existing coal fired plant without CCS Levelized fuel prices for U.S. context: $3, $6, and $5 per GJ HHV for coal, natural gas, and biomass. $15/tCO 2 cost for storage in deep saline aquifer. 85% plant capacity factors. Natural gas combined cycle without CCS LCOEs for fossil fuel plants are based on capital cost estimates in the Baseline Power Studies of the National Energy Technology Laboratory (USDOE) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Price ($ / tonne CO 2eq )

17 Electricity Generating Cost with CO 2 Emissions Price 150 Levelized Cost of Electricity (2012$ / MWh e ) CCS retrofit to existing coal plant Existing coal fired plant without CCS Levelized fuel prices for U.S. context: $3, $6, and $5 per GJ HHV for coal, natural gas, and biomass. $15/tCO 2 cost for storage in deep saline aquifer. 85% plant capacity factors. Natural gas combined cycle without CCS LCOEs for fossil fuel plants are based on capital cost estimates in the Baseline Power Studies of the National Energy Technology Laboratory (USDOE) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Price ($ / tonne CO 2eq )

18 Electricity Generating Cost with CO 2 Emissions Price 150 Levelized Cost of Electricity (2012$ / MWh e ) CCS retrofit to existing coal plant Existing coal fired plant without CCS Levelized fuel prices for U.S. context: $3, $6, and $5 per GJ HHV for coal, natural gas, and biomass. $15/tCO 2 cost for storage in deep saline aquifer. 85% plant capacity factors. Natural gas combined cycle without CCS Natural gas combined cycle with CCS LCOEs for fossil fuel plants are based on capital cost estimates in the Baseline Power Studies of the National Energy Technology Laboratory (USDOE) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Price ($ / tonne CO 2eq )

19 Electricity Generating Cost with CO 2 Emissions Price 150 Levelized Cost of Electricity (2012$ / MWh e ) CCS retrofit to existing coal plant Existing coal fired plant without CCS Levelized fuel prices for U.S. context: $3, $6, and $5 per GJ HHV for coal, natural gas, and biomass. $15/tCO 2 cost for storage in deep saline aquifer. 85% plant capacity factors. BECCS BECCS estimate by ESAG/Princeton University. Natural gas combined cycle without CCS Natural gas combined cycle with CCS Greenhouse Gas Emissions Price ($ / tonne CO 2eq )

20 How much commercial BECCS does 2 C require? [Intended Nationally Determined Contributions] (for 2 o C) Negative Emissions Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters, The Trouble with Negative Emissions, Science, 14 Oct 2016

21 BECCS construction to achieve negative emissions BECCS generating capacity, GW e Each BECCS plant: - 1 million t/y biomass MW electric - 90% carbon captured - 30-y operating life plants/year 38 GW/year For comparison, globally: - 67 GW/y of new coal plants (net of retirements) added during 2007 to GW of PV and 63 GW of wind added in /y 17 GW/y 340/y 58 GW/y

22 Size of BECCS-related CO 2 storage industry quickly exceeds size of today s global oil industry 3,5 (volume basis) Global CO 2 Flow Relative to 2015 Oil Flow 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 12 years 0,

23 Wildly-different expectations for future global sustainable biomass supplies for energy Energy Biosciences Institute, Biomass in the energy industry: An introduction, BP, 2014.

24 Unprecedented rates of cellulosic energy-crop expansion projected for 2 C scenarios Turner, et al., Unprecedented rates of land-use transformation in modelled climate change mitigation pathways, Nature Sustainability, 1: , May 2018.

25 What if emissions don t peak until 2030? Emissions [Intended Nationally Determined Contributions] (for 2 o C) Total required negative emissions more than doubles (for 600 GtCO 2 carbon budget). Negative Emissions Negative Emissions Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters, The Trouble with Negative Emissions, Science, 14 Oct 2016

26 Summary and Look Ahead Remaining carbon budget for 2 o C warming: GtCO 2. Negative emissions will be needed (sooner or later) to meet this budget. Models deploy BECCS widely and cost-effectively because they like BECCS costs. Will (When will) costs of sustainable BECCS reach levels assumed by the models? Without aggressive technology RD&D and new regulatory systems, e.g. governing biomass supply and CO 2 storage, BECCS will not be ready by How should biomass supplies be provided so as to avoid negative impacts on food, water, or ecosystems? Who will pay mountain of death technology development costs for BECCS? Who will pay for assessing CO 2 storage opportunities? Looking ahead Public Private partnerships to support RD&D and initial commercial deployment, e.g., Mission Innovation / Breakthrough Energy Coalition International knowledge and technology sharing to help reduce costs. Work on other negative emissions options (in addition to BECCS), especially land-based. Design and implement carbon mitigation policies that will induce and sustain commercial deployment of negative emissions options starting as early as 2030.