The Life Cycle Assessment of CO 2 capture and geological storage in energy production

Transcription

1 The Life Cycle Assessment of capture and geological storage in energy production Anna Korre, Zhenggang Nie, Sevket Durucan Mining and Environmental Engineering Research Department of Earth Science and Engineering Royal School of Mines Prince Consort Road London, SW7 2AZ

2 Outline Life cycle assessment (LCA) LCA boundaries of CCS system Life cycle inventory (LCI) modelling CCGT with chemical absorption capture system SMR with membrane capture system ATR with pressure swing adsorption capture system pipeline transportation and injection A case study: Qatar natural gas production, LNG transport and power generation in the UK Imperial College London Page 2

3 Life Cycle Assessment definition Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an objective process to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with a product, process, or activity by identifying energy and materials used and wastes released to the environment, and to evaluate and implement opportunities to affect environmental improvements. (SETAC, 1990) Imperial College London Page 3

4 Imperial College CCS LCA model system boundaries Natural resources Emissions to air, water and soil Electricity and by-products Extraction of fossil fuel Processing of fossil fuel Fossil fuel transportation Power Generation with Capture Conditioning Consumables Production Raw Material Production Consumables transportation Transportation Storage Upstream processes infrastructure Power plant and capture facility infrastructure pipeline infrastructure injection infrastructure Imperial College London Page 4

5 CCGT with post-combustion CCS System and Emissions Electricity Emissions in to the Atmosphere ( Depleted Flue Gas):,CO,NOx, N 2 O, PM c, PM f, SO 2, SO 3, CH 4, TOC, VOC, N 2, Ar, O 2, H 2 O, Amine, Nitrosamine, Nitramine, Formamide, other hazardous air emissions Air, Natural gas (components): CH 4, N 2,, C 2 H 6, C 3 H 8, C 4 H 10, C 5 H 12, C 6 H 14, C 7 H 16, H 2, CO, He, H 2 O, H 2 S Water Sodium hydroxide Sulphuric acid Gas Combustion Turbine Water make up Water treatment plant Effluent Exhaust steam Flue gas Condensate return Air cooled condenser Steam Turbine HRSG Steam LP steam Flue gas HRSG blowdown Storm water basin Stack capture Waste water CO2 depleted flue gas Energy conditioning pipeline transportation injection saline aquifer storage Soil wastes: Disposal of lubricating oils and de scaling chemicals Discharge to surface waters Potential Leakage to Air Page 5

6 Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Natural Gas Exhaust gas to steam cycle Steam Air Electricity Operational parameters considered: Energy in Exhaust gas Page 6

7 Chemical Absorption Capture LCI Model Developed Page 7

8 Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) plant with Membrane capture SMR+Membrane Reactor H 2 Turbine Natural gas H 2 Steam Heat Offgas (H 2, ) Steam Natural gas combustion Heat Steam Turbine O 2 ASU Offgas combustion compressors Electricity Product Plant configuration Page 8

9 Life Cycle Inventory Modelling: Steam Methane Reformer Syngas: Natural Gas Steam Heat Energy required for NG compression H 2 CO CH 4 H 2 O Heat in syngas carrying forward Parameters considered: Carbon/ Hydrogen mole ratio of natural gas; Steam/ carbon mole ratio; Reaction temperature; Reaction pressure; Inlet steam temperature; Imperial College London Page 9

10 Life Cycle Inventory Modelling: SMR+Membrane Reactor From: K. Jordal et al., 2004 Imperial College London Page 10

11 Life Cycle Inventory Modelling: Steam Methane Reformer + Membrane Reactor Natural Gas Steam Heat Energy required for NG compression Syngas: H 2 CO CH 4 H 2 O H 2 product Heat in syngas carrying forward Parameters considered: Inlet flow rate; Carbon/ Hydrogen mole ratio of natural gas; Steam/ carbon mole ratio; Reaction temperature; Reaction pressure; Inlet steam temperature; Membrane area; Membrane permeability; Membrane thickness; Imperial College London Given hydrogen recovery rate, the model calculates: Membrane area required; Or given membrane area, the model calculates: Hydrogen recovery rate; Page 11

12 Auto-thermal reforming (ATR) plant with Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) capture Natural gas Steam ATR reformer Syngas CO shift PSA Syngas with more H 2 H 2 H 2 Turbine H 2, CO,, CH 4 Offgas (H 2, ) Steam O 2 HRSG to steam turbine Steam Turbine ASU O 2 Offgas combustion compressors CO2 product Electricity Plant configuration Imperial College London Page 12

13 pipeline transportation Emissions to the Atmosphere Recompression stations for Geological Storage Flow in Energy for Recompression Calculation: Density and Viscosity Pipeline Diameter Pressure Drop in Pipeline Energy Required for Recompression Emissions from Recompression Stations Fugitive Emissions from Recompression Stations Fugitive emissions from pipeline Imperial College London Page 13

14 injection into saline aquifer Air Emissions from the Injection Pumps and the Heater Fugitive Emissions to Air Energy Requirement for the Injection Pumps and the Heater Inlet from Pipeline Heater Injection Pumps Storage Tanks Transportation Pipeline Calculations: Bottomhole Injection Pressure; Injectivity; Number of Injection Wells; Surface Injection Pressure; Energy Requirement by the Injection Pumps; Energy Requirement by the Heater; Fugitive Emissions from the Injection Facilities; Injection Wells Imperial College London Page 14

15 A Case Study: full chain analysis of Qatar natural gas to a UK power plant without/with CCS Qatar North Field offshore natual gas production Gas processing and LNG plant at Ras Laffan LNG shipping (Q Max & Q Flex): from Qatar to the UK via Suez Receiving terminal at South Hook + onshore gas pipeline to power plant Alternative gas power generation with/without CO2 capture CCGT CCGT + MEA ATR with PSA CO2 injection into saline aquifer CO2 pipeline transportation SMR + Membrane Qatar North Field offshore production(1730 MMscf/day) undersea pipeline (80 km) Gas processing and LNG plant at Ras Laffan (2 7.8MTPA) LNG shipping (Q Max & Q Flex): from Qatar to the UK via Suez Canal (11281 km) Receiving terminal at South Hook (2 7.8MTPA) onshore gas pipeline to power plant (100km) Alternative Gas power generation with/without CO2 capture CO2 pipeline transportation (300km) CO2 injection into saline aquifer (161t/hr)

16 GHG emissions from gas supply chain GHG emissions from construction (kg CO2 e) 1.89E E E E E E E E E E E E+00 Predrilling and well testing Offshore NG platform constructin & installation Offshore pipeline construction & commissioning Onshore NG processing plant Onshore pipeline construction LNG plant construction LNG receiving terminal construction 6.00E E E E E E E Gas Supply chain operation Life cycle GHG emissions (kg CO2 e) LNG receiving terminal LNG shipping LNG plant Onshore pipeline Onshore processing plant Imperial College London Page 16

17 Comparison of various gas based plant configurations GHG emissions Kg CO2 e/mwh Natural gas consumption Kg/MWh ATR with PSA CO2 capture ATR with PSA CO2 capture SMR with Membrane SMR with Membrane CCGT with MEA capture CCGT with MEA capture CCGT CCGT Power plant efficiency (%) captured Kg/MWh ATR with PSA CO2 capture 43.25% ATR with PSA CO2 capture SMR with Membrane 51.49% SMR with Membrane CCGT with MEA capture 48.91% CCGT with MEA capture CCGT 55.00% CCGT Imperial College London Page 17

18 Life cycle of GHG emissions for alternative power plant configurations with gas supplied from Qatar Predrilling and well testing Offshore NG platform constructin & installation ATR+PSA Onshore NG processing plant Onshore pipeline construction LNG plant construction SMR+Membrane LNG receiving terminal construction Offshore NG production platform Onshore processing plant CCGT+MEA capture Onshore pipeline LNG plant operation LNG shipping CCGT LNG receiving terminal Power plant kg CO2 e/mwh CO2 transportation CO2 injection Imperial College London Page 18

19 Thanks! Anna Korre Mining and Environmental Engineering Research Department of Earth Science and Engineering Royal School of Mines Prince Consort Road London, SW7 2AZ