Modeling Carbon Capture and Disposal Technologies in Energy and Economic Models (PNWD-SA-5868)

Transcription

1 Modeling Carbon Capture and Disposal Technologies in Energy and Economic Models (PNWD-SA-5868) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on CO 2 Removal and Storage Regina, Canada November 2002 Jim Dooley, Jae Edmonds, Bob Dahowski & Marshall Wise Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

2 The Role of Carbon Capture and Disposal in Achieving the Goal of the UNFCCC Carbon capture and disposal (CC&D) could be one of the most important levers we have to address climate change. Over the course of the century, carbon capture and disposal could account for 30% or more of all climate mitigation beyond business as usual technology improvements. CC&D technologies if widely deployed can reduce the cost of stabilization by one third or more. Carbon capture and disposal technologies will likely be deployed on a massive scale around the globe. CC&D deployment will start before the middle of the century. 2

3 CO 2 Stabilization Facts For any given stabilization level, there is only one carbon budget that everyone on the planet shares throughout this century. This carbon budget is set by the stabilization level; lower stabilization levels have correspondingly lower carbon budgets. Regardless of stabilization level, emissions must slow, peak in this century, and eventually decline to net zero. As emissions constraints tighten, carbon prices will rise. Example Implications of Carbon Capture and Disposal The number of people on the planet, their standard of living, etc are all relevant factors in determining the deployment of CC&D technologies. The utilization of CC&D technologies will be greater in a 450 ppmv stabilization scenario than in a 650 stabilization scenario. Any leakage from previous generations use of CO2 disposal must - - in the long term --be made up with other offsets. The value -- and therefore the deployment -- of CC&D technologies will rise over time. 3

4 Outline Two major categories of energy and economic models Top Down Bottom Up Research Needs The successful development and deployment of costeffective CO 2 capture and disposal requires a much more robust understanding of the performance of this class of technologies over time. 4

5 A Partial List of the Growing Number of Energy and Economic Models that Explicitly Incorporate CC&D EPPA Massachusetts Institute of Technology AIM - National Institute for Environmental Studies SGM Pacific Northwest National Laboratory MiniCAM Pacific Northwest National Laboratory New Earth 21 - RITE GRAPE Science University of Tokyo MESSAGE IIASA MARKAL International Energy Agency NEMS- US Department of Energy Dynamic Energy Systems Model - Carnegie Mellon University CO2-GIS Battelle Memorial Institute 5

6 Top down energy and economic models: Common attributes Tend to be general and partial equilibrium models Focus on integrating all aspects of the economy; particular focus is on market and economy-wide feedbacks and substitutions Global coverage with (typically) a dozen or more sub regions Top down models are remarkably complex in certain ways but in other ways they these models make use of very aggregate descriptions of technological systems. 6

7 Top down energy and economic models: Common attributes Particularly useful in examining Competition amongst a number of competing climate change abatement options. Technology competition against a consistent economic background. Technology evolution over the long term (e.g., years.) Technology adoption under varying future economic, demographic and emission mitigation scenarios. Assumptions about future technological progress are very important in driving results. 7

8 Example: Technology competition for the global provision of electricity under 550 ppmv WRE constraint Oil Gas Scrubbed Oil Scrubbed Gas Exajoules per year Coal Biomass Solar Scrubbed Coal Nuclear Hydro NB: OGF 550 Stabilization Scenario. 8

9 Representation of Carbon Capture and Disposal Technologies within the MiniCAM Coal Oil and Gas Energy Penalty for Carbon Capture (a) 37% declining to 9% 24% declining to 10% Additional Investment Costs for Capture System (b) 54% declining to 33% 54% declining to 33% $15/tonne of C $15/tonne of C Transport and Disposal Cost (c) Efficiency of Capture (b) 90% 90% Sources: (a) Herzog et al., (b) Gottlicher and Pruschek, (c) Freund and Ormerod, Over time, technological progress assumed to take place in the capture aspect of system. 9

10 The resulting cost trajectory as a function of time for CC&D for the electric power sector. $180 $160 Coal Electric Gas Electric $140 Dollars per ton of carbon $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $

11 Disposal & Transport Costs Are Constant? This is a very important assumption and an assumption that needs to be better understood. Constant disposal and transport costs implies that CO 2 disposal reservoirs are: evenly distributed across the globe homogeneous, and are infinite (or not meaningfully constrained). 11

12 Bottom-Up Energy and Economic Models: Common Attributes For example, linear programming / optimization models. Modeling of the economy and demand for energy are sometimes exogenously specified. Tend to be more detailed and more focused in their technology characterization less so in their depiction of the overall economy. Tend to be focused on a specific region (e.g., the US) or only on a given small set of technologies (e.g., the electric power sector) or both (e.g., electric power sector in the North Eastern USA). 12

13 Bottom up: An attempt to model real-world assets not high-level technology aggregates Plant Name Barry GenCode 5 County Mobile State AL Type Utility Primary Fuel Coal Primemover Steam Turbine Nameplate Capacity, MW 789 Summer Capability, MW 768 Capacity Factor Vintage 1971 Cogen? No SO 2 Controls? No NO x Controls? Yes 1999 CO 2 Emissions, tons 5,496,151 Utility Alabama Power Co. Parent Company The Southern Company Latitude Longitude FIELD Anton Irish TYPE CO2 miscible OPERATOR Altura STATE Tex. COUNTY Hale START_DATE 4/1/1997 AREA ACRE 1600 Z_PROD WE 82 Z_INJ WEL 40 PAY_ZONE Clearfork FORMATION Dolomite POROSITY 7 PERMEABILI 5 DEPTH FT_ 5900 API_GRAVIT 28 VISCOSITY_ 2.7 TEMP F 115 PREVIOUS_P Primary, Waterflood SATUR S SATUR E PROJECT_MA Just Started TOTAL_PROD 7800 ENHANCED_P 4500 PROJECT_EV Successful PROFIT_ Yes PROJECT_SC Field Wide DD_LON DD_LAT SOURCE GNIS - oilfield CO2_TYPE Natural CO2_SOURCE Bravo Dome 13

14 Factors in a bottom up modeling of carbon capture and disposal system Cost of capture: Model real-world system (e.g., MHI s CO 2 capture unit) Model real-world energy and O&M costs Cost of transport: Actual pipeline distances Ability to factor in items like booster pumps for long pipelines Pipeline sized to handle specific flow amounts Cost of disposal: Number of injection wells should be based upon CO 2 flow from source number of wells needed dependent on individual formation/reservoir characteristics Net cost of disposal calculation heavily dependent upon there being nearby value added reservoirs All of these are variable and all are dependent upon characteristics of real world sources and sinks. 14

15 This is not a homogenous set of opportunities for carbon capture and disposal. A deployment schedule derived from a bottom up analysis would be driven by pair wise cost minimizing decisions at each point in time. Battelle Clay 1337 Boswell Fossil Plant 923MW Generating coal power Vintage: Units 100 MW at 589 6M tons Plants of CO2 Deep saline formation 453 GW 290 miles Installed to the West. Capacity Mitchell, Terrell, Warren & Pucket natural 2.27 billion gas tons annual processing CO plants 2 Currently emissions sell a few million tons of CO2 to existing 21 high EOR projects priority via deep existing pipelinessaline formations 19 major coal basins 70 CO2- driven EOR projects 15

16 A pair wise bottom up deployment schedule /cost curve for CC&D $800 $700 $600 $ per ton of C $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $- $(100) Millions of tons of CO2 Note: Max pipeline 50 miles. 16

17 Summary: Points of Agreement Energy and economic models seems to agree on a number of broad principles: Relatively small niche market for CC&D technologies in the absence of a CO 2 emissions mandate Ultimate deployment of this class of technologies could be massive Electricity produced from coal with CC&D likely cheaper than capture from NGCC with CC&D. CC&D technologies will increase deployment as the technology improves CC&D technologies deployment accelerates as carbon permit prices rise Exajoules per year Oil Gas Coal Biomass Solar Scrubbed Oil Scrubbed Gas Scrubbed Coal Nuclear Hydro

18 Summary: Points of Disagreement or Lack of Information What is the cost of electricity produced by CC&D systems? What is the carbon price that triggers the commercial deployment of CC&D technologies? What is the global, regional, and local CO 2 disposal capacity of various reservoirs? 18

19 Field experiments and relevantly scaled demonstrations are needed to narrow some key uncertainties $300 Cost of Capture as a Function of Time Cost of Transport as a Function of Time? Cost of Disposal as a Function of Time? Dollars per ton CO2 Net Disposal Cost $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $ $(50) Millionsof TonsDisposed 19

20 Research Needs: Understanding CC&D Relevance Beyond Electric Power Sector As noted earlier, much of the modeling of CC&D is focused on the utilization of these technologies by the electric power sector. However, in order to stabilize CO 2 concentrations, all CO 2 emissions need to be controlled. Much more work needs to be done in exploring the the dynamics of CO 2 abatement and the possible use of CC&D by these other industrial sectors. Number of Facilities in US CO 2 Flue Gas Purity Ammonia % Cement % Ethylene % Ethylene Oxide % Natural Gas Processing % Hydrogen Production % Iron and Steel % Refineries % 20

21 Research Needs: Injection Rates At Sleipner, one injection well handles approximately 1m tons of CO 2 / year. Is this a typical formation? How many injection wells are needed to handle 1m tons of CO 2 in a typical deep saline formation? In a typical coal seam? Does the number of wells needed for injection into a given formation vary with time? How closely can multiple injection wells be placed Wellhead together? P Injection Pressure Inflow How long can any given injection Annulus Pressure P Fresh Water well operate? Grout Is there a (serious?) mismatch Tubing between the expected lifetime of a Annulus power plant and an injection field Confining Zone Packer Injection Zone wells capacity? Ground Surface 21

22 Research Needs: Net Transport Distance Of those models that attempt to address transport distance as a variable, they generally tend to make the simple assumption of one-to-one pairing of source and sink via a dedicated pipeline. Possible determinants of whether and when CO 2 networks will evolve: The social acceptance of CO 2 pipelines The potential magnitude and demand for disposal in a given region. The nature of capital stock within a region and how fast it might turn over. 22

23 Research Needs: Retention Rates At GHGT6, a session was devoted to the issue of leakage from CO 2 disposal activities on achieving stabilization goal. Most papers concluded that some very small level of leakage from sequestration was acceptable, but differed by a orders of magnitude (1% to 0.01%) as to what was allowable. Models that were forced to assume all emission abatement came from the deployment of carbon capture and disposal had much tighter retention rates. Are these leakage rates constant with time or do they vary as a function of time (e.g., is there some kind of a threshold) for any given reservoir? Gigatons of Carbon WRE Disposal Innovation 650 Static Disposal Tech WRE Disposal Innovation 550 Static Disposal Tech WRE Disposal Innovation 450 Static Disposal Tech 23

24 Research Needs: Value Added Formations What is the supply of value added formations and their capacity to accept CO 2 as a function of time? Are these value added formations located near current or future major CO 2 point sources? Will the amount of oil or CH 4 produced by CO 2 -driven EOR and ECBM be so large that it will affect the price paid for oil and natural gas? If value added formations are located near a large concentration of CO 2 point sources and supply of CO 2 outstrips demand, what happens to the price of CO 2? Who gets these rents if any? 24

25 Research Needs: What is the universe of possible CO2 sinks and their location? Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR): 70 Projects, 190,000 bbl/d enhanced production Deep Coal Basins: 21 basins, 230 TCF technically recoverable CBM reserves Priority Deep Saline Aquifers: 21 initial formations selected Deep Basalt Formations: Handful of formations identified 25

26 Research Needs: Distribution of CO 2 Disposal Reservoirs Across the Globe Over time, the OECD region is likely to be a minor player in global CO 2 capture and disposal utilization. The growth in emissions will be outside of the OECD, therefore these non-annex 1 regions are a likely major market for CC&D usage. Where are the CO 2 disposal reservoirs in India, China, Russia, and Latin America? And who should pay so that we can know this now rather than later? TgC CO 2 Disposal by Region SE Asia Latin America Africa Mideast China EE&FSU Aus&NZ Japan OECD Europe Canada USA 26

27 Research Needs: Other Examples Monitoring, Verification, and Ancillary Costs Over Time Rental value of carbon (e.g., what is the value of less than permanent retention?) How do CC&D technologies facilitate the attainment of non-climate air pollution control? What role do other proposed systems play: mineralization carbon black free air scrubbing? Ocean disposal Injection into upper well mixed layer Pooling / deep injection, clathrates 27

28 My Bottom Line Top down and bottom up models are very useful tools in understanding many facets of the deployment of CC&D systems in a greenhouse gas constrained world. There is much to be done to improve the models and this work is underway in many places. The models, however, will not likely yield significant new revelations absent data from field experiments. Where are CO 2 disposal reservoirs and what is their storage potential (per day, per year and cumulative potential over time) at a basin scale? What is the future cost of CO 2 capture systems, broadly defined? 28