The Role of Natural Gas in a Carbon- Constrained World

Transcription

1 The Role of Natural Gas in a Carbon- Constrained World Arvind P Stanford University The Payne Institute at Mines

2 Natural Gas: Future Growth in All Regions Globally, natural gas is expected to grow in both OECD and non-oecd countries Increased supply (US, Australia) and demand (SE Asia, China, India, EU) Assists grid integration of large % renewables Reduce PM2.5 pollution improved air quality health outcomes World share of primary energy Energy-related emissions of pollutants and CO 2 BP Statistical Review of Energy (2017) IEA World Energy Outlook

3 Methane as a Greenhouse Gas Methane second most abundant GHG globally. 16% of global emissions, 11% of US GHG emissions (EPA GHGI 2016) Significantly higher global warming potential than CO 2 (GWP: 36 IPCC AR5) Oil and Gas activity major industrial source of emissions Easier to tackle methane from O&G due to readily available path to market IPCC 5 th Assessment Report (2014) NOAA Global Air Sampling Network 3

4 Expectation vs. Reality Natural gas production trillion cubic feet billion cubic feet per day history projections High Oil and Gas Resource and Technology High Oil Price High Economic Growth Reference Low Economic Growth Low Oil Price Low Oil and Gas Resource and Technology > 55% believe US should use < 10 Tcf of gas by But, EIA projects record high production > 40 Tcf by

5 Climate Implications of Cheap Natural Gas Total U.S. natural gas production = 27 Tcf (2016) Production/consumption estimates through 2050 diametrically oppose to Paris targets Fossil NG emissions account for 60 85% of total C-budget Ravikumar et al (in preparation) 5

6 Overview of Natural Gas Work Micro Analysis 1. System Modelling FEAST platform Fugitive Emissions Abatement Simulation Toolkit Life-cycle Assessments of LNG trade, emissions, and economic impact Macro Strategies 3. GHG Mitigation Policy Multi-year effort on measuring efficacy of emissions mitigation policy (Alberta, Canada) Advanced mitigation frameworks (multi-tiered approach, quantification) 2. Technology Assessments 4. Spillover Impacts Modeling and empirical studies of emissions detection technology Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge testing new leak detection platforms Distributional impact of methane emissions on electricity and other sectors Incorporating methane into broader climate policies (carbon tax, cap and trade, etc.) 6

7 Methane Leakage Superemitters 1 Leakage is dominated by super-emitters 5 50 rule: small number of leaks responsible for large fraction of emissions Ravikumar et al. Environ. Res. Lett (2017) 7

8 Methane Leakage Difficult to Find Leaks 2 Emissions are difficult to detect and expensive Millions of potential sources (production, gas plants, pipelines, etc.) Leaks are (mostly) stochastic wear & tear, operator error, equipment malfunction little predictive capability Technologies to detect methane are slow/expensive (this is changing) 8

9 Methane Leakage Prescriptive Policies 3 Emissions mitigation policy is prescriptive Mandate specific actions instead of mitigation targets Leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs most common approach Allowed technologies include infrared cameras and handheld sensors Push to incorporate innovation into policy (drones, planes, trucks, etc.) 0.85% 0.1% 0.4% 1.4% 9

10 Overview of Natural Gas Work Micro Analysis 1. System Modelling FEAST platform Fugitive Emissions Abatement Simulation Toolkit Life-cycle Assessments of LNG trade, emissions, and economic impact Macro Strategies 3. GHG Mitigation Policy Measuring efficacy of emissions mitigation policy (Alberta, Canada) Advanced mitigation frameworks (multi-tiered approach, quantification) 2. Technology Assessments 4. Spillover Impacts Modeling and empirical studies of emissions detection technology Distributional impact of methane emissions on electricity Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge testing new tech platforms Impact of climate policies on future use of natural gas 10

11 Technology Innovation Revisit time ~ 1 week Fast screening ~45 min flying time Fox et al. In review (2018) 11

12 Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge (MMC) Platforms drones, trucks, and plane-based systems 3 weeks of blind controlled release tests: April May technologies participated METEC test site (CSU, Fort Collins) Visit: methane.stanford.edu 12

13 Example Technology Testing - Drone 13

14 Technology A (Drone) Best in class performance (detection & quantification) Professionally managed operations (standard protocols) Real time data including quantification (initial estimate) Leak identification (overall) Total number of leaks 63 Number of zeros 41 Yes No Total Leak No Leak Yes No Leak True + False - No Leak False + True Locational Accuracy Total number of leaks 63 Number detected 59 Number location identified 50 % location identified correctly

15 Technology A - Quantification Most leak estimates within 2x of actual leak rates (Quantification, in general, is very difficult. Within 2x is exceptional performance for sensors that don t directly measure flow rates) Ravikumar et al. In review (2018) 15

16 How can technology inform mitigation policy? 16

17 FEAST Fugitive Emissions Abatement Simulation Toolkit Open-source Updated with new technologies, emissions data, policy scenarios Web-based version in development Tool simulates evolution of natural gas leaks over time Assess leak-detection technology Assess mitigation policy Assess long-term impact of business practices 17

18 FEAST Platform Capabilities Technology/Platform Models OGI, Method-21, Drones, Planes, Trucks Economic data Methane Emissions Data Activity/Inventory counts Published emissions data (facility or component level) Policy Scenarios Business Practices 1.Technology inter-comparison studies 2.Long-term mitigation trends (changes to baseline) 3.Cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches 4.Trade-offs in survey frequency vs. mitigation Kemp et al. Environ. Sci. Technol (2016) 18

19 FEAST: Dynamic Simulation Markov process to generate leaks Emissions Mitigation = Natural repair rate + Mitigation Policy Random leak generation 0.5 g/s = 5 tons per year Various mitigation scenarios 19

20 Analyze Policy Blind-Spots Existing policies require use of infrared cameras to detect leaks But regs do not specific how leak surveys should be designed Results in mitigation uncertainty Effectiveness reduces with increasing distance Ravikumar et al. Environ. Sci. Technol (2016) 20

21 FEAST Uncertainty Capabilities: and Cost-effectiveness Cost-Benefit Analysis EPA over-estimates cost of mitigation policy Mitigation benefits variable Requires regional focus in policy Ravikumar et al. Environ. Res. Lett (2017) 21

22 Field Campaign To Assess Policy Effectiveness Campaign sponsored by consortium of Canadian O&G industry and regulators 50 x 50 km area NW of Calgary ~ 200 sites selected for leak detection and repair surveys 3 different survey schedule (1, 2 or 3 times per year) and 1 control group Goals: Determine time evolution of emissions mitigation sunset policy 22

23 Bringing Policy Makers And Scientists Together Workshop to develop future mitigation frameworks for regulators Invite-only workshop with academics, regulatory agencies, and industry Environment Canada, Alberta Energy Regulator U.S. EPA, Colorado DPHE, California ARB 23

24 Why does this matter? Impact on Broader Energy Systems 24

25 Major Shale Plays and Emissions Studies Peischl (2015) Ren (2017) Kort (2016) Schneising (2014) Smith (2017) Karion (2013) Robertson (2017) Uintah Upper Green River San Juan Petron (2012, 2014) Brantley (2014) Robertson (2017) Araiza (2015) Lyon (2015) Fayetteville Lan (2015) Karion (2015) Brantley (2014) Peischl (2015) Robertson (2017) Schweitzke (2017) Peischl (2015) Ren (2017) Omara (2016) Caulton (2014) Barnett Peischl (2015) Lavoie (2017) Schneising (2014) Roest (2016) 25

26 Production Normalized Leakage Rates Large variation among basins Estimates have high uncertainty including single point estimates Large variation distributional impacts critical to understanding benefits of natural gas use M. Omara (2016), X. Ren (2017), J. Peischl (2015), D. Caulton (2014), G. Roest (2016), O. Schneising (2014), A. Robertson (2017), S. Schwietzke (2017), J. Peischl (2016), X. Lan (2015), D. Lyon (2015), D. Zavala-Araiza (2015), A. Karion (2015), H. Brantley (2014), M. Smith (2017), EPA (2016) 26

27 GHG Emissions from Gas No Leakage Avg. Emissions intensity: 430 g CO 2 /kwh, about 50% lower than coal Varies from 391 g CO 2 /kwh (GA) to 588 g CO 2 /kwh (IN) Single cycle natural gas plants Ravikumar et al. In review (2018) 27

28 GHG Emissions from Natural Gas 100 yr GWP Avg. Emissions intensity from 430 g CO 2 /kwh to 542 g CO 2 e/kwh Western states (WA, OR, CA, AZ, NV) typically do worse due to originating gas basins 28

29 A Cautionary Tale Are we repeating mistakes of the past? 29