Barriers To The Implementation of CCS

Transcription

1 Barriers To The Implementation of CCS John Gale General Manager IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme Public Power Corporation Seminar on CCS Athens, Greece June 24 th 2008

2 Introduction Key Barriers to implementation include: International Acceptance Regulatory Development Storage options Safety/permanence Energy Penalty Cost Competitiveness/Market for CCS Infrastructure development Public Awareness/Education Capacity Building

3 International Acceptance Considerable progress has been made: Acceptance of CCS as a mitigation option under Kyoto Protocol at COP11/MOP1 IPCC SRCCS Acceptance of amendment to London Convention to permit storage Sub sea geological structures Predominantly CO2

4 International Acceptance Key Outstanding Issue is inclusion of CCS in CDM Need implementation of CCS in developing countries Route through CDM Currently no progress on CCS acceptance in CDM Unlikely to proceed at COP 12/MOP2

5 Regulatory Developments These are occurring world wide but issues to consider include: Pace of regulatory development Is it fast enough? Can we resolve treatment of liability Do we need an international decision? How do we develop regulations in Developing Countries Do we need an international standard? Is that feasible?

6 CO2 Storage Options Saline Aquifers Depleted oil/gas reservoirs Enhanced Oil Recovery Enhanced Coal Bed Methane

7 CO2 Storage Capacity Storage Option Depleted gas fields 690 Depleted oil fields/co2- EOR Global Capacity - Gt CO2 120 Deep saline aquifers Unminable coal seams 40 Global CO2 emissions ~30 Gt pa

8 Storage Options Oil and gas fields already stored hydrocarbons for millions of years Exploration data available Only limited take up in CO2-EOR operations despite high oil and gas prices Aquifers so much depends on these formations Know little about their geology generally Detailed programmes to research these aquifers Injection tests to assess their suitability as storage reservoirs Coal seams Pilot and demonstration projects (such as RECOPOL) to prove this concept

9 Physically trapped beneath caprock timescale: immediately CO2 is trapped by capillary forces timescale: 1-100s yrs CO2 dissolves in water CO2 Trapping Mechanisms timescale: s yrs CO2 converts to solid minerals timescale: 100s 10,000s yrs Trapping becomes more secure with time

10 Safety/Permanence For a CCS operation we cannot say there will be never be leakage Industry statistics show there will be fugitive emissions from pipelines and surface facilities Low level and intermittent Can quantify such emissions These emissions are distinct from the storage formation If they occur these will be very low level (seepage) and occur over long time periods Likely to cause local environmental impacts only

11 Safety/Permanence Need to engineer for zero leakage from the storage formation 5 component plan: Detailed site characterisation Reservoir simulation Risk assessment Monitoring programme Remediation programme

12 IPCC Special Report on CCS (2005) Observations from engineered and natural analogues as well as models suggest that the fraction retained in appropriately selected and managed geological reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99% over 100 years and is likely to exceed 99% over 1,000 years. For well-selected, designed and managed sites, the vast majority of the CO2 will gradually be immobilized by various trapping mechanisms and, in that case, could be retained for up to millions of years. Storage could become more secure over longer timescales. Local health and safety risks for CO2 pipelines could be similar or lower than hydrocarbon pipelines.

13 IPCC Guidelines for GHG Inventories Apr 2006 Vol 2 Energy, Chp 5 - CO2 Transport, Injection and Geological Storage Methodology Site characterisation inc leakage pathways Assessment of risk of leakage simulation / modelling Monitoring monitoring plan Reporting inc CO2 inj and emissions from storage site For appropriately selected and managed sites, supports zero leakage assumption unless monitoring indicates otherwise

14 IPCC Guidelines for GHG cont. Monitoring Plan Measurement of background fluxes of CO2 Continuous measurement of CO2 injected Monitoring of injection emissions Periodic monitoring of CO2 distribution Monitoring of CO2 fluxes to surface Post-injection monitoring as above, linked to modelling, may be reduced or discontinued once CO2 stabilises at its predicted longterm distribution Incorporate improvements in technologies and techniques over time Monitoring technologies Annex 1 Deep subsurface technologies Shallow subsurface technologies Surface / water technologies

15 Site Characterisation and Modelling Year 2021 Year 2412 Year 2621 Year 5019 Year 7018 Kilde: Gemini No. 1, 2004 (NTNU and Sintef)

16 Monitoring 4D seismic used to monitor the CO2 plume Statoil 2007

17 Summary of Monitoring Experience No firm evidence from any of the large scale projects that leakage is occurring Weyburn (3 years), Sleipner (10 years), Rangeley (20 years) Only one project has any surface seepage and there are doubts about the data Monitoring lifetimes are short <25 years Cannot quantify seepage Nor determine a generic leakage rate

18 If leakage were to occur? Remediation methods available from oil and gas expertise Well integrity Caprock Re-seal and re-plug well (cement, heavy mud) Repair or replace well casing/tubing/packing Intercept well - long-established techniques Remove accumulated CO2 Reduce pressure in reservoir Increase pressure in strata above Inject sealing foam/gel/cement Costs - ~ 1-10 $m Also can stop using site

19 Costs - UK power generation costs (central assumptions with EU-ETS) ETS) Offshore Wind (100MW) Onshore Wind (80MW) Nuclear CCGT with CCS IGCC with CCS PF with FGD with CCS Retrofit PF with FGD with CCS CCGT IGCC PF with FGD Market price Market price 2006 ROC buyout price Market price 02/ /MWh I.e. CCS = % increase coe UK DTI Energy Review 2006

20 Efficiency Increase & CCS Combined

21 Development of Efficiency in Coal fired PP in Germany Net efficiency 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% Ferrites and Martensites (260 bar, 545 C) Austenites (290 bar, 600 C) CCS Energy Penalty Nickel BasedAlloys (350 bar, >700 C) CCS makes efficiency increase very important 30% Start-up

22 CCS Market Drivers Currently high oil and gas prices will drive some CO2 injection projects Low incremental cost for storage Sleipner, In-Salah, Snohvit Economic incentive through increased hydrocarbon production Weyburn, K-12B Norwegian situation Tax incentives for offshore emission reduction driving project development

23 CCS Market Creation Long term CO2 market needs to be created Emissions Trading Scheme European system immature Current trades will not finance CCS projects 3.3/t CO 2 as of 27/01/07 Current volatility will not encourage long term investment 3-24 /t CO 2 Need to drive down cost of CCS 20-40% cost reductions achievable through replication In short term projects may need government support Longer term; a stable trading market must establish itself CO 2 supply/storage infrastructure needs to develop

24 Norwegian Initiative New initiative in Norway to create a CO2 supply infrastructure Part public sector/part private sector enterprise Establish a CO2 supply infrastructure for Norway to realise it CO2-EOR potential Leave behind a supply infrastructure that can then be used for CO2 storage Announced in Autumn 2006

25 Infrastructure Development Main potential storage area Major emission sources Issues: Substantial pipeline system required 150,000 km High cost element 120 Billion Who will finance the infrastructure development? Will it develop piece meal or in a structured development? Rights of access Open or Limited?

26 Infrastructure Development Are there supply constraints that will prevent widespread implementation Can we build the power plants? Limitations on key component supply castings? Are there additional issues for CCS Pipeline manufacturing capacity? Steel/other commodity prices increasing

27 What have we learnt to date? Monitoring results to date indicate no migration out of CO2 out of the reservoirs Only have up to 10 years experience Modelling work is building confidence that we can predict the long term fate of the injected CO2. Work on impacts indicate leakage will be localised and ecosystem impacts limited Overall we are building confidence that it won t leak and if it does its not a significant problem Do we have enough information to convince the sceptics?

28 Public Awareness Public awareness of impacts of climate change is growing A lot of media attention Need to do something acknowledged Public knowledge about CCS is currently limited But knowledge is growing Media attention to demonstration projects in the UK Royal Society support in UK newspapers NGO s can influence public opinion NGO s in Europe and USA generally in favour of CCS with caveats Greenpeace is not Public awareness on CCS is currently limited Need to build public awareness to ensure projects do not meet public resistance

29 Public Awareness Need to urgently start a public education programme Open and transparent Happening at pilot project scale in some countries Australia, Europe, Canada and USA Need more concerted engagement programmes CATO programme and Japan Need more demonstration projects with public engagement In-Salah Need to be aware that local issues could dominate in planning reviews Local issues have caused rejection of wind farms in many European countries despite public acceptance of need for more renewables

30 Broader Engagement As the technology approaches broad deployment we will engage more diverse groups with different questions/issues? Issues will become more regional/local in focus Impacts on local areas of scientific interest/local ecosystems CO2GeoNet one of a few groups internationally developing information on impacts NIMBY lobby Less aesthetically displeasing than wind turbines Environmentally conscious technical groups outside CCS community becoming vocal in regions Need in future for informed groups that can provide unbiased technical expertise at public hearings

31 Capacity Limitations IEA GHG recently chaired at technical review of the Regional Partnerships Programme in North America for the USDOE. This identified a number of capacity related issues? Limited numbers of staff with key skills Geochemical modelling and geo-mechanical modelling, IEA GHG recommended the USDOE needs to build in a complimentary training programme To develop staff capabilities in North America during the Regional Partnerships Programme Network of Excellence could be well placed to overcome similar capacity limitations in Europe

32 Aging workforce Oil& Gas and power sector facing problems with ageing workforce Surveys indicate that 50-60% of workforce will reach retirement age in next 10 years Students in science/engineering disciplines are declining in developed countries Need to build capacity base in CCS for the future Need to create modules/courses for students in current engineering universities Cant wait for 10 years for academic system to slowly change We need students coming through in large numbers within 10 years

33 Capacity Building Urgent need to encourage students to consider a career in CCS IEA GHG now organises an annual international student summer Last year held in Germany for 60 students, this year in Canada Supported by CO2GeoNet Details at US DOE running an annual summer school CO2GeoNet running training seminars and developing a PhD programme University of Edinburgh running 1 day course on geological storage

34 Summary CCS implementation is picking up pace internationally but more urgency is needed CCS needs to be included in CDM But we need to engage wider audience to ensure CCS does not get inadvertently derailed We need credible expertise to address issues raised openly and honestly We also need to build our technical capacity base and encourage students to see CCS as their future career path