Large scale CCS infrastructure in a European, in a Nordic and in a Swedish perspective

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Large scale CCS infrastructure in a European, in a Nordic and in a Swedish perspective"

Transcription

1 Large scale CCS infrastructure in a European, in a Nordic and in a Swedish perspective Chalmers Energy Conference January 26 th, 2011 Jan Kjärstad, Ricky Ramdani, Pedro M. Gomes Dept of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology

2 Outline of the presentation The Context Global GHG emission reduction requirements CCS in a global perspective CCS in a European perspective Large-scale CCS infrastructure - exemplified through 3 recently finished/ongoing studies CCS in Sweden CCS in the Nordic countries CCS in Europe

3 The context global GHG emission reduction requirements More recent research indicates however that stabilisation at 450 ppm may not be enough to limit the temperature increase to 2 C Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007

4 CCS in a global perspective Roughly 9 Gtpa in 2050 IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2010 edition

5 CCS in an EU perspective 1 Chalmers University of Technology EU is targeting 20-30% GHG emission reductions in 2020 and has suggested 80-95% reductions for industrialised countries in 2050 (relative to 1990). Breakdown EU GHG emissions 1990/2007 (Ex LULUCF): GHG: 5,564/5,045 Mt CO 2 e CO 2 : 4,400/4,187 Mt CO 2 (2007: 83% of GHG-emissions) Transport CO 2 : 768/966 Mt CO 2 (2007: 23% of CO 2 emissions, 19% of GHG emissions) In other words 80-95% GHG emission reductions in 2050 implies close to no stationary CO 2 emissions at all Commissions objective: large-scale demo plants up and running in 2015 demonstrating the entire chain (capture, transport, storage). EU Financial support (up to 50% of total investments) EEPR programme: 1 billion shared between 6 coal power plants with CCS NER 300 programme: Revenues from auctioning of 300 million emission allowances will be allocated to large-scale CCS demo projects and innovative renewable projects. The EU CCS directive shall be transferred into national law in all EU member states by June 25 th, A European CO 2 transport network included in Commissions Com. Nov. 17, 2010: Energy Infrastructure Priorities for 2020 and beyond

6 CCS in an EU perspective - 2 CCS in EU will probably start with large-scale demo plants followed by some regional clusters like Rotterdam and UK northwest coast McKinsey/ZEP suggest CCS plants in 2030 capturing around 400 Mt CO 2 per year. Cost of CO 2 -emissions will have to render CCS as a competitive mitigation option. CO 2 storage potential appear to be sufficient in most member states but; Significant uncertainties in most estimates Onshore storage facing opposition and Offshore potential concentrated to the countries situated around the North Sea Recently, several CCS projects have been delayed or abandoned Still significant barriers/uncertainties, e.g.: Capture cost, storage capacity, regulatory framework, public acceptance, emission price

7 Large-scale CCS infrastructure 3 recent/ongoing studies CCS in Sweden and in the Nordic countries Swedish Energy Agency (finished) : CCS in the Baltic Sea region EU Interreg (ongoing): CCS in the Skagerrak/Kattegat region. CCS in Europe: Collaboration with EU Commissions Joint Research Centre (JRC) (ongoing): Linking techno-economic modelling of Europé s electricity sector to large-scale CCS infrastructure optimization.

8 Chalmers Methodology Modelling of Europe s electricity sector provides CO 2 captured by fuel and by country (power sector only different methodology for industry). The CO 2 is allocated to capture plants assumed to replace existing plants (blocks) based on plant (block) age. Compression to 70 bars included in capture cost Four pipeline modes; Collecting pipelines, Bulk Pipelines, Reservoir Pipelines, Injection Pipelines (the latter based on reservoir injectivity). All pipelines designed based on plateau capacity Operating pipe pressure onshore bar, offshore based on distance. Cost calculations: Based on IEA (2007) and actual pipeline design cost adjusted by latest update of IHS Downstream Capital Cost Index Annuitized over 20 years with 8% discount rate

9 Overview Baltic Sea study Sources and Sinks Sources (red fossil, green biogenic) Swedish sources mainly biogenic no incentives for CCS Sinks (Norwegian/UK sinks not shown) Source: Chalmers Energy Infrastructure Database

10 Sweden Baltic Sea Bay of Bothnia cluster Barents Sea Norway Finland Industry only 80% overall capture 18 sources, from 60 kton to 3.8 Mtpa!! Plateau volume 14.8 Mtpa Storage in aquifers in Barents Sea Special focus on ramp-up: Bulk pipe at 25, 50, 75% reaching 100% capacity in year 10 Versus 4 smaller pipelines each carrying 25% and built over 10 years. Bulk pipeline most competitive - Specific cost: per ton* * Improved cost data (IEA 2007 instead of IEA 2004) indicates that specific cost should be raised by a factor 2

11 Baltic Sea Western Finland and around Gävle Sweden Sweden Baltic Sea Finland Norway Estonia Latvia 20 sources from 94 kton to 1.9 Mtpa, plateau volume 16.5 Mtpa Storage in aquifers in Norwegian Sea (Åre or Tilje formation) or Baltic Sea 3 cases; pipeline to Norwegian Sea and Baltic Sea, boat to Baltic Sea Volumes ramped up over 5-10 years (25, 50, 75 and 100% of plateau capacity) Bulk pipeline most cost efficient, specific cost with 100% utilisation from year 1 ranging from 9.2/ton (Norwegian Sea) to 10.0 per ton with storage in Barents Sea. Boat transport from central hubs incl liquefaction and intermediate storage: 13.7/ton * Improved pipeline cost data (IEA 2007 instead of IEA 2004) indicates that specific cost should be raised by a factor 2

12 EU Interreg study CCS in Skagerrak/Kattegat-region Attract industry with a long-term solution for CO 2 -emissions

13 CCS in the Skagerrak/Kattegat region Chalmers University of Technology The first EU-financed intraregional CCS study comprising sources in Denmark, Norway, Sweden Roughly 13 Mt CO 2 emitted annually from large stationary sources in the region Capture potential ~ 10 Mtpa representing 25% of combined national reduction targets in 2020 The project is led by Tel-Tek, Norway with Chalmers as lead partner and will: Analyze capture in detail at 7 sites Design transport systems; boat and pipeline Investigate storage possibilities in the region Analyze legal framework/legal preconditions for CCS in the region

14 Example of a network in the region Possibly boat transport during earlybuild-up Promising storage structures identified

15 CCS in the European Power Sector Chalmers University of Technology Modelling of EU s power sector providing annual CO 2 -flow JRC providing corresponding optimized transport network Two scenarios capturing and transporting 15 and 24 Gt respectively between Total cum investments for the transport system ranging from 13.7 to 25.7 billions* Total pipeline length ranging from 10,300 km to 14,900 km* * Assuming no storage in onshore aquifers cum investments rise to 31.2 billions (15 Gt stored)

16 CCS in the European power sector next steps Chalmers will look in detail at some individual schemes providing feedback to JRC s model in an iterative process and develop a methodology for design of CCS infrastructure

17 Conclusions CCS may play an important role in mitigating climate change Globally, in Europe and in the Nordic countries. CCS may also play an important role in Sweden incentivising CCS from biogenic sources will contribute to neutralising parts of emissions from the transport sector The interest for CCS in Sweden is growing, also politically There is a lot of CCS related activity but still significant uncertainties remain Chalmers has been a leading institution for research on capture for many years and is developing several important tools to investigate the role of CCS within the energy system.

18 Thank You