Dr. Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer. Round Table on Coal Brussels, 29 November General Economic Policy/Science PAGE 1

Transcription

1 Carbon Footprints of Fossil Fuels for Power Generation Comparison of the carbon footprint of pipeline gas from Russia and Norway with those of LNG, shale gas and coal Dr. Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer General Economic Policy/Science Round Table on Coal Brussels, 29 November 2011 PAGE 1

2 Full chain of natural gas, hard coal and lignite use Natural gas Extraction Processing Transport Distribution + Storage Conversion into power Liquefaction Re-gasification Ship Hard coal Extraction Inland transport Ship Inland transport Conversion into power Lignite Extraction Inland transport Conversion into power PAGE 2

3 Basic assumptions for comparison > Account taken of emissions due to and leakage along the supply chain for natural gas, hard coal and lignite > Inclusion of carbon dioxide and methane > Period under review: 100 years and, alternatively, 20 years (GWP*) > Extraction method, origin and type / length of transport route > Power-plant technology specifically efficiency in 2030 > Study of plants without CCS and, alternatively, with CCS Comprehensive η = 65 % η approach = 65 % on the basis of existing literature * GWP = Global Warming Potential according to IPCC (2007), i.e. for methane: factor 25 for 100 years and factor 72 for 20 years. PAGE 3

4 [g CO 2,equi /kwh electr ] Total emissions without CCS Climate period under review: 100 years; forecast for 2030 Combustion in German power plants η = 65 % η = 65 % η = 65 % η = 65 % Russia Norway Natural Gas Extraction (shale gas, maximum) Extraction Processing, transport to port Long-distance transport (ship, pipeline) Inland losses, transport to power plant Combustion in power plant LNG from Egypt, Qatar, Nigeria LNG from US (Shale Gas)* η = 50 % η = 50 % η = 50 % underground mining, South Africa Coal open pit & local Lignite open pit & local Sources: GEMIS database (Ökoinstitut); *: according to Howarth et al. (2011) and Jiang et al. (2011). IHS CERA (2011; no quantifications made) assumes there are no differences in the emissions resulting from shale gas and natural gas. PAGE 4

5 [g CO 2,equi /kwh electr ] Total emissions without CCS Climate period under review: 20 years; forecast for 2030 Combustion in German power plants Natural Gas Coal 1000 Extraction (shale gas, maximum) 900 Extraction Processing, transport to port Long-distance transport (ship, pipeline) Inland losses, transport to power plant Combustion in power plant η = 50 % η = 50 % η = 50 % η = 65 % η = 65 % η = 65 % η = 65 % Russia Norway LNG from Egypt, Qatar, Nigeria LNG from US (Shale Gas)* underground mining, South Africa open pit & local Lignite open pit & local Sources: GEMIS database (Ökoinstitut); *: according to Howarth et al. (2011) and Jiang et al. (2011). IHS CERA (2011; no quantifications made) assumes there are no differences in the emissions resulting from shale gas and natural gas. PAGE 5

6 Worldwide power generation, 2009 to 2035, in TWh (New Policies Scenario) 36,250 27, % Renewables 20, % 13 % 24 % 13 % 13 % Nuclear energy 67 % 63 % 56 % Fossil fuels Source: International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2011, Paris 2011 PAGE 6

7 [g CO 2,equi /kwh electr ] Total emissions with CCS Climate period under review: 100 years; forecast for 2030 Combustion in German power plants Natural Gas Extraction (shale gas, maximum) Extraction Coal η = 57 % η = 57 % η = 57 % η = 57 % η = 40 % η = 40 % η = 40 % Russia Processing, transport to port Long-distance transport (ship, pipeline) Inland losses, transport to power plant Combustion in power plant Norway LNG from Egypt, Qatar, Nigeria LNG from US (Shale Gas)* underground mining, South Africa open pit & local Lignite open pit & local Sources: GEMIS database (Ökoinstitut); *: according to Howarth et al. (2011) and Jiang et al. (2011). IHS CERA (2011; no quantifications made) assumes there are no differences in the emissions resulting from shale gas and natural gas. PAGE 7

8 [g CO 2,equi /kwh electr ] Total emissions with CCS Climate period under review: 20 years; forecast for 2030 Combustion in German power plants Natural Gas Extraction (shale gas, maximum) Extraction Coal η = 57 % η = 57 % η = 57 % η = 57 % η = 40 % η = 40 % η = 40 % Russia Processing, transport to port Long-distance transport (ship, pipeline) Inland losses, transport to power plant Combustion in power plant Norway LNG from Egypt, Qatar, Nigeria LNG from US (Shale Gas)* underground mining, South Africa open pit & local Lignite open pit & local Sources: GEMIS database (Ökoinstitut); *: according to Howarth et al. (2011) and Jiang et al. (2011). IHS CERA (2011; no quantifications made) assumes there are no differences in the emissions resulting from shale gas and natural gas. PAGE 8

9 Upshot for climate relevance of natural gas and coal > If the entire chain is included, the climate relevance approximates although gas has an advantage (where no CCS is used). > To achieve climate targets, CCS is indispensable in the future. > If power is generated with CCS, coal has no disadvantage over gas. > In power plants with CCS, coal does better than shale gas (according to Howarth et al. 2011). It is not substitution of energy sources that is key to climate protection but new technologies, increase in efficiency, and CCS η = 65 % η = 65 % PAGE 9

10 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION PAGE 10