Nowe Technologie w ochronie srodowiska Czesc 1. Jozef M. Pacyna NILU Norwegian Institute for Air research Norway

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Nowe Technologie w ochronie srodowiska Czesc 1. Jozef M. Pacyna NILU Norwegian Institute for Air research Norway"

Coleen Shelton
6 years ago
Views:

1 Nowe Technologie w ochronie srodowiska Czesc 1. Jozef M. Pacyna NILU Norwegian Institute for Air research Norway EU Innovation Indicator European Commission - IP/13/831 13/09/2013

2 Climate Change: Global challenges affecting all

3 The Greenhouse gases

Fossil Fuel CO 2 Emissions CO 2 emissions (Pg C y -1 ) Growth rate 1990-1999 1 % per year Growth rate 2000-2009 2. % per year CO 2 emissions (Pg CO 2 y -1 ) 2009: Emissions:8.4±0. PgC Growth rate: -1.

4 Fossil Fuel CO 2 Emissions CO 2 emissions (Pg C y -1 ) Growth rate % per year Growth rate % per year CO 2 emissions (Pg CO 2 y -1 ) 2009: Emissions:8.4±0. PgC Growth rate: -1.3% 1990 level: +37% Growth rate: +3.2% 20: Growth rate: >3% Time (y) Friedlingstein et al. 20, Nature Geoscience; Gregg Marland, Thomas Boden-CDIAC 20 Fossil Fuel CO 2 Emissions: Top Emitters 2009 Carbon Emissions per year (C tons x 1,000,000) 2000 China 1600 USA India Russian Fed. 400 Japan Time (y) Global Carbon Project 20; Data: Gregg Marland, Tom Boden-CDIAC 20

5 Top 20 CO 2 Emitters & Per Capita Emissions 2009 Total CO 2 emissions (x,000 PgC y -1 ) CHINA USA Global Carbon Project 20; Data: Gregg Marland, Thomas Boden-CDIAC 20; Population World Bank 20 INDIA RUSSIA JAPAN GERMANY IRAN SOUTH KOREA CANADA UNITED KINGDOM MEXICO SAUDI ARABIA SOUTH AFRICA INDONESIA ITALY BRAZIL AUSTRALIA FRANCE (inl. Monaco) POLAND SPAIN Per Capita Emissions (tonnes C person -1 y -1 ) CO 2 Emissions by Fossil Fuel Type CO 2 emissions (PgC y -1 ) Gas Cement Oil Coal 40% 36% Time (y) Updated from Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience; Data: Gregg Marland, Thomas Boden-CDIAC 20

CO 2 Emissions from Land Use Change (1960-2009) CO 2 emissions (PgC y -1 ) 8 6 4 2 Fossil fuel Land use change LUC emissions now ~% of total CO 2 emissions 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20 Time (y)

6 CO 2 Emissions from Land Use Change ( ) CO 2 emissions (PgC y -1 ) Fossil fuel Land use change LUC emissions now ~% of total CO 2 emissions Time (y) Updated from Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience Atmospheric CO 2 Concentration Parts Per Million (ppm) GLOBAL MONTHLY MEAN CO 2 December 2009: ppm September 20 (preliminary): ppm 39% above pre-industrial : 1.3 ppm y : 1.6 ppm y : 1. ppm y : 1.9 ppm y -1 November 20 Annual Mea Growth Rate (ppm y -1 ) Data Source: Pieter Tans and Thomas Conway, 20, NOAA/ESRL

7 Key Diagnostic of the Carbon Cycle Evolution of the fraction of total emissions that remain in the atmosphere CO 2 Partitioning (PgC y -1 ) Total CO 2 emissions Atmosphere Time (y) Updated from Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience; Data: NOAA 20, CDIAC 20 2 Modelled Natural CO 2 Sinks Land sink (PgCy -1 ) models Ocean sink (PgCy -1 ) 4 models Time (y) Updated from Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience

8 Human Perturbation of the Global Carbon Budget (PgC) CO 2 flux (PgC y -1 ) Sink Source deforestation 1.1± Time (y) Global Carbon Project 20; Updated from Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience; Canadell et al. 2007, PNAS Human Perturbation of the Global Carbon Budget CO 2 flux (PgC y -1 ) Sink Source fossil fuel emissions deforestation (PgC) 7.7±0. 1.1± Time (y) Global Carbon Project 20; Updated from Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience; Canadell et al. 2007, PNAS

9 Human Perturbation of the Global Carbon Budget CO 2 flux (PgC y -1 ) Sink Source fossil fuel emissions deforestation (PgC) 7.7±0. 1.1± Time (y) Global Carbon Project 20; Updated from Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience; Canadell et al. 2007, PNAS Human Perturbation of the Global Carbon Budget CO 2 flux (PgC y -1 ) Sink Source fossil fuel emissions deforestation atmospheric CO (PgC) 7.7±0. 1.1± ± Time (y) Global Carbon Project 20; Updated from Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience; Canadell et al. 2007, PNAS

10 Human Perturbation of the Global Carbon Budget CO 2 flux (PgC y -1 ) Sink Source fossil fuel emissions deforestation atmospheric CO 2 ocean ocean Time (y) (PgC) 7.7±0. 1.1± ± ±0.4 ( models) Global Carbon Project 20; Updated from Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience; Canadell et al. 2007, PNAS Human Perturbation of the Global Carbon Budget CO 2 flux (PgC y -1 ) Sink Source fossil fuel emissions deforestation atmospheric CO 2 land ocean Time (y) (PgC) 7.7±0. 1.1± ± (Residual) 2.3±0.4 ( models) Global Carbon Project 20; Updated from Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience; Canadell et al. 2007, PNAS

11 Fate of Anthropogenic CO 2 Emissions ( ) 1.1±0.7 PgC y ±0.1 PgC y -1 47% PgC y-1 7.7±0. PgC y 27% -1 Calculated as the residual of all other flux components 26% 2.3±0.4 PgC y -1 Average of models Global Carbon Project 20; Updated from Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience; Canadell et al. 2007, PNAS World primary energy demand in the Reference Scenario: this is unsustainable! IEA WEO 2008 Mtoe Other renewables Hydro Nuclear Biomass World energy demand expands by 4% between now and 2030 an average rate of increase of 1.6% per year with coal accounting for more than a third of the overall rise Gas Coal Oil

Total power generation capacity today and in 2030 by scenario Coal Gas Nuclear 1.2 x today 1. x today 1.8 x today Hydro 2.1 x today Wind Other renewables 13. x today 12.

12 Total power generation capacity today and in 2030 by scenario Coal Gas Nuclear 1.2 x today 1. x today 1.8 x today Hydro 2.1 x today Wind Other renewables 13. x today 12. x today Coal and gas with CCS 1% of today s coal & gas capacity GW Today Reference Scenario Policy Scenario 2030 In the 40 Policy Scenario, the power sector undergoes a dramatic change with CCS, renewables and nuclear each playing a crucial role

13 Activity Sectors Per capita CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion 4.0 per capita CO2 emissions from fuel combustion in 2009 [IEA 2011] ADInventory for 20: 33 ton CO2/ capita ton CO2/ cap

14 CO 2 and theeu Currently the world CO 2 emission is about 28 bilion tons/year of which EU accounts for about 4 billion tons/year (about 1%) The need for global action, otherwise the CO 2 will increase by 2030 to 0 billion tons Possibility of CO 2 reduction by 20% or even 30% No rules in many countries outside EU Acute EU policy in the subject of CO 2 can lead to deterioration of competitivness and relocation of production outside EU, where standards are less restrictive Emission reduction options Main approaches: Pre-combustion measures: improved efficiency of energy production, coal washing, substitution of fuels, Post-combustion measures: CCS Co-control of climate gases and air pollutants (GHGs, PM, SO 2, NOx) Pollutant specific emission control technologies Selection of appropriate measures depend on: Current technology (different measures may be most cost efficient in different regions) Rules, regulations etc. Economic and social factors

15 Coal use in China, India and Poland Power generation: Subcrit PCC SC/USC PCC FBC IGCC Shanghai, 900 MW SC units Lagisza, 460 MW FBC unit China X X X X India X (X) X X Poland X X X Sipat power plant, India FUTURE COAL-FIRED PLANT ZERO-EMISSION PLANTS WITH CO 2 SEPARATION CO 2 separation after combustion process Combustion in oxygen atmosphere CO 2 separation before combustion process Image source: Vattenfall

16 TOXECON N Sorbent Injection Baghouse Coal HESP TOXECON is an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) patented process in which sorbents including powder activated carbon for mercury control and others for NOx and SOX control are injected into the combustion gases downstream of an existing particulate control device Sorbent based on ash from coal power station

17 Modified mesoporous materials from fly ash- -novel sorbents for post-combustion capture of CO2 surfactant Fly ash Extract Surfactant micelle PEI Hexagonal array calcination Modified mesoporous materials (MCM-41) from fly ash Sorbent used for the removal of emergency spills of hazardous liquids SORBENT OIL

18 Systematic approach to zero-emission Construction of new, highly efficient coal IGCC systems with supercritical parameters CO 2 emission lower by 1% Target: Zero - emission Instalation of IGCC as well as technology for capture and storage ofco 2 CO 2 emission lower by as much as 90% Reconstruction of the existing systems based on coal Construction of power plants with capture and storage of CO 2 CO 2 emission lower by as much as 90% 0 20 years CO 2 emission reduction as a result of technological changes World average gco2/kwh ~30% ~1116 gco2/kwh EU average ~38% ~881 gco2/kwh High performance PC/IGCC ~4% ~743 gco2/kwh 700 o C blocks 21 % 33 % 40 % ~0% ~669 gco2/kwh significant reduction possible only with CCS <2020 But: efficiency loss of -12 % Increase of efficiency results in significant effects, but only CCS leads to real CO 2 emission reduction. 90 % adapted from VGB 2007; efficiency HHV,net

19 Methods for storing CO2 in deep underground geological formations SRCCS Figure TS-7 Potential leakage routes and remediation techniques for CO2 injected into saline formations SRCCS Figure TS-8

20 Methods of ocean storage SRCCS Figure TS-9 The cost of individual sequestration steps ($/tco 2 ) 60 70% Maximym price Minimum price 1 20% 20 km distance 1 20% CO 2 capture CO 2 transport CO 2 storage Very high energy consumption for CO 2 capturing

21 Costs for onshore pipelines and offshore pipelines as a function of the CO2 mass flow rate SRCCS Figure TS- SRCCS Figure TS- Costs for onshore pipelines, offshore pipelines and ship transport SRCCS Figure TS-6

Material fluxes and process steps associated with the mineral carbonation of silicate rocks or industrial residues SRCCS Figure TS- Implementation of the CCS the main obstacles New technologies in

22 Material fluxes and process steps associated with the mineral carbonation of silicate rocks or industrial residues SRCCS Figure TS- Implementation of the CCS the main obstacles New technologies in the pilot phase - risk of implementation - cost Permissions for CO 2 storage - not in my backyard - a strong opposition of local authorities - storage on land is very expensive Political uncertainty - introduction of European Trading System - support on national and EU level

23 Możliwości finansowania technologii CCS - Norwegia 17 lat minęło od Nei for EU Fundusz olejowy miliardó miliardów Nkr Planowane dochody z nowych źródeł gazu i oleju (Aldous/ Avaldsnes) Dochód z oleju i gazu 2000 miliardó miliardów Nkr Dochód z przemysłu obsługującego (service) miliardó miliardów Nkr/rocznie Planowane inwestycje w Norwegii Inwestycje Funduszu Olejowego w Fundusz Kryzysowy Unii Możliwe pożyczki dla Krajów Unijnych najbardziej dotkniętych kryzysem Inwestycje w sektorze energetycznym (10 miliardów Nkr w ciągu najbliższych lat) Inwestycje w technologię CCS w 20 roku - 2,7 miliarda Nkr

Technologia CCS potrzeby (maksymalny wzrost temperatury o 2 stopnie do roku 200) Budowa dużej skali obiektów CCS - 100 Obecnie planowane obiekty CCS - 74 Tendencje do wycofywania się z inwestowania

24 Technologia CCS potrzeby (maksymalny wzrost temperatury o 2 stopnie do roku 200) Budowa dużej skali obiektów CCS Obecnie planowane obiekty CCS - 74 Tendencje do wycofywania się z inwestowania technologii CCS w wielu krajach poza Unią The European CO 2 Test Centre Mongstad (TCM) - Faza1 Redukcja: Faza ton/ rok CO 2 Faza ton/ rok CO 2 Ekonomia: Rząd poinformował, że większość z 2,7 miliardów Nkr ( 477 milionów $) jest przeznaczone dla TCM Dwie fazy: ze względu na redukcję technologicznego i finansowego ryzyka Technologia CCS w Mongstad

25 Can coal combustion be environment friendly? YES, it can, BUT: New, highly efficient combustion technologies are needed to produce electricity and heat (new blocks with supercritical vapor conditions, cogeneration, hybrid systems, etc). Carbon dioxide emissions should be reduced through the implementation of pre-combustion, post-combustion methods, or combustion in oxygen. CCS technologies should be implemented mainly in new power stations (storage of carbon monoxide should be resolved). Co-control technologies should be employed to reduce emissions of various contaminants, such as mercury (e.g. various adsorbers). Cost of the above technologies should not lead to deterioration of competitivness and relocation of energy production outside EU, where standards are less restrictive. Emission reductions are achievable Thank you for your attention

Scientific updates on current emissions and sinks of greenhouse gases and implications for future emissions pathways

Scientific updates on current emissions and sinks of greenhouse gases and implications for future emissions pathways Dr Richard A. Houghton, Woods Hole Research Center with contributions from the Global