IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme

Transcription

1 Carbon Capture and Storage The Developments Worldwide Tim Dixon IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme EEF - February 19 th 2008

2 Introduction to IEA GHG What is CCS? Introduction Why CCS? Fossil fuels and climate change Is it safe? International policy and regulatory developments International project developments

3 IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme A collaborative research programme founded in 1991 Aim is to: Provide members with definitive information on the role that technology can play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Producing information that is: Objective, trustworthy, independent Policy relevant but NOT policy prescriptive Reviewed by external Expert Reviewers Subject to review of policy implications by Members Activities: Studies (>100), R&D networks (6), Communications :- facilitating ti and focussing R&D and demonstration ti activities iti Funding approximately 2 million /year.

4

5 What is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)?

6 Carbon Capture and Storage Capture 85-90% Transport Storage

7 Saline Aquifers CO2 Storage Depleted oil/gas reservoirs Enhanced Oil Recovery Enhanced Coal Bed Methane

8 CO2 Trapping Mechanisms Physically trapped beneath caprock timescale: immediately CO2 is trapped by capillary forces timescale: 1-100s yrs CO2 dissolves in water timescale: s yrs CO2 converts to solid minerals timescale: 100s 10,000s yrs Trapping becomes more secure with time

9 CO2 Storage Capacity Storage Option Depleted gas fields 690 Global Capacity - Gt CO2 Depleted oil fields/co2-120 EOR Deep saline aquifers Unminable coal seams 40 Global CO2 emissions ~30 Gt pa

10 Costs - UK power generation costs (central assumptions with EU-ETS) ETS) Offshore Wind (100MW) Onshore Wind (80MW) Nuclear CCGT with CCS IGCC with CCS PF with FGD with CCS Retrofit PF with FGD with CCS CCGT IGCC PF with FGD Market price Market price 2006 ROC buyout price Market price 02/ /MWh Ie CCS = % increase coe UK DTI Energy Review 2006

11 Why CCS?

12 Predicted Future Global Warming Global Temperature Global CO 2 Emissions Source: IPCC

13 STERN REVIEW: The Economics of Climate Change (already at about 430 ppm CO 2 e all GHG, not just CO 2 )

14 World Primary Energy Demand 18 billion n tonnes of oil equivalent 18 Other renewables 16 Biomass Hydro 14 Nuclear 12 Gas Oil Coal Global demand grows by more than half over the next quarter of a century, with coal use rising most in absolute terms (IEA/OEACD WEO 2007)

15 Reference Scenario: China & India in Global CO 2 Emissions United States Cumulative Energy-Related CO 2 Emissions European Union Japan China India billion tonnes Around 60% of the global increase in emissions in comes from China & India

16 No one solution is enough Gt 40 CCS in industry - 3% CCS in power generation - 9% Nuclear - 13% 35 Renewables - 20% Switching from coal to gas - 8% of CO 2 Gt Gt End Use electricity efficiency - 17% End Use fuel efficiency i - 30% Gt 15 Source: IEA World Energy Outlook 2007 WEO Conclusion : Next 10 years are critical - The pace of capacity additions will be most rapid - Technology will be locked-in for decades

17 Role of CCS in climate change mitigation? IPCC Special Report (2005) CCS contributing 15-55% of CO2 mitigation to 2100 IEA Technology Perspectives (2006) CCS 20-28% of mitigation to Second only to energy efficiency. Stern Report (2006) CCS ~10% mitigation by 2025, ~20% by Marginal mitigation costs without t CCS increase by ~60%. EC/Shell (2007) - 7 yrs delay CCS = 90GT CO2 to 2050 = 3 yrs global emissions = 10ppm World Energy Outlook CCS is one of the most promising routes for mitigating emissions in the longer term and could reconcile continued coal burning with the need to cut emissions in the longer term.

18 Is it Safe?

19 IPCC Special Report on CCS (2005) Observations from engineered and natural analogues as well as models suggest that the fraction retained in appropriately selected and managed geological reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99% over 100 years and is likely to exceed 99% over 1,000 years. For well-selected, designed and managed sites, the vast majority of the CO2 will gradually be immobilized by various trapping mechanisms and, in that case, could be retained for up to millions of years. Storage could become more secure over longer timescales. Local health and safety risks for CO2 pipelines could be similar or lower than hydrocarbon pipelines.

20 IPCC Guidelines for GHG Inventories Apr 2006 Vol 2 Energy, Chp 5 - CO2 Transport, Injection and Geological Storage Methodology Site characterisation inc leakage pathways Assessment of risk of leakage simulation / modelling Monitoring monitoring gplan Reporting inc CO2 inj and emissions from storage site For appropriately selected and managed sites, supports zero leakage assumption unless monitoring indicates otherwise

21 IPCC Guidelines for GHG cont. Monitoring Plan Measurement of background fluxes of CO2 Continuous measurement of CO2 injected Monitoring of injection emissions Periodic monitoring i of CO2 distribution ib ti Monitoring of CO2 fluxes to surface Post-injection monitoring as above, linked to modelling, may be reduced or discontinued once CO2 stabilises at its predicted longterm distribution Incorporate improvements in technologies and techniques over time Monitoring technologies Annex 1 Deep subsurface technologies Shallow subsurface technologies Surface / water technologies

22 Site Characterisation and Modelling Year 2021 Year 2412 Year 2621 Year 5019 Year 7018 Kilde: Gemini No. 1, 2004 (NTNU and Sintef)

23 Monitoring 4D seismic used to monitor the CO2 plume Statoil 2007

24 If leakage were to occur? Remediation methods available from oil and gas expertise Well integrity Caprock Re-seal and re-plug well (cement, heavy mud) Repair or replace well casing/tubing/packing Intercept well - long-established techniques Remove accumulated CO2 Reduce pressure in reservoir Increase pressure in strata above Inject sealing foam/gel/cement Costs - ~ 1-10 $m Also can stop using site

25 International ti lp Policy and dr Regulatory Developments

26 London Convention and Protocol Marine Treaty - Global agreement regulating disposal of wastes and other matter at sea Convention 1972 (83 countries), Protocol 1996 ratified March 2006 (31 countries) CCS CCS scenarios prohibited by LP - considered as disposal Assessed by LC Scientific Group Risk Assessment Framework for CO2 Amendment adopted at 28th Consultative Meeting, 2 Nov came into force 10 Feb to allow disposal of:- CO2 streams from CO2 capture processes for sequestration...

27 Simulated and observed marine ph ranges till 2100 ph range for the last 20 million years 8 ph ppm 280 ppm 370 ppm 500 ppm 700 ppm 1000 ppm Glacial Pre-ind Now worst case PML 2005

28 PML: Impacts and Feedbacks in a High CO 2 World? Synergistic Effects Climate Change Ocean Acidification Feedbacks with ocean acidification Biogases: sea/air flux Feedbacks with climate change Increased thermal and freshwater stratification CH 4, N 2 O, DMS Ocean CO 2 uptake Decreasing surface ocean ph Modelling Experimentation C, N, P, Si, S Pelagic biodiversity and biogeochemistry Decreasing nutrient and O 2 flux Observation Benthic-Pelagic coupling Meroplankton: larvae and juveniles Benthic biodiversity and biogeochemistry Turley, Plymouth Marine Laboratory

29 Example: Leakage at a rate of 3 million tons CO 2 per year Slide courtesy Ken Caldeira; Data Chen et al., 2005

30 Simulation of a continuous leak over 1 year ph anomaly compared with no leak - based on capacity of one pipeline Short term leak will have a very small and spatially limited impact A long term leak will have a measurable and wider spread impact, but the impact is small compared with atmospherically driven acidification Blackford, J.C., Gilbert, F.J., ph variability and CO 2 induced acidification in the North Sea. Journal of Marine Systems 64

31 Marine Treaty for NE Atlantic 15 nations and EC CCS scenarios prohibited Considered CO2 impacts on seas Considered CCS OSPAR OSPAR amendments (to Annexes II and III) for CO2 storage adopted June 2007 OSPAR Decision requirement to use Guidelines when permitting, including risk assessment and management process OSPAR Guidelines for Risk Assessment and Management of Storage of CO2 in Geological Formations

32 EC Draft CCS Directive Enabling regulatory framework to ensure environmentally sound CCS (23 Jan 2008) Follows IPCC GHG Guidelines and OSPAR Objective is permanent storage Permits will be required for CCS Permit only if no significant risk of leakage Emphasis on site selection, characterisation, risk assessment, monitoring Corrective measures Financial security required from operator Liability transfer to regulatory authority when evidence indicates contained for indefinate future only then may monitoring reduce or cease Removes regulatory barriers in other Directives IPPC, Waste, LCPD, Water, EIA, ELD Capture-ready

33 ETS Directive To strengthen, expand and improve the ETS from 2013 CCS Can already be included in Phase II ( ) by opt-in CCS fully included from 2013 Site and operation will need to comply with CCS Directive Needs monitoring and reporting guidelines No free allocation to CCS (same as electricity) Separate permitting of capture, transport and storage If any leakage surrendering of allowances

34 Regulatory developments in other regions USA Existing Underground Injection Control programme for ground water protection adapted for Pilot projects Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission has developed recommendations for regulations for CO2 storage at a State Level US EPA are developing Federal level regulations for CO2 storage Australia Will adapt Federal Oil and Gas Laws State of Victoria has a consultation document for CCS Canada Canada acid gas injection and CO2-EOR already permitted in states like Alberta Federal Task Force developing CCS regulations Japan Adapted marine laws but has no oil and gas laws to adopt for CCS Most existing laws cover; permitting, construction, ti operational and abandonment phases but NOT post closure

35 Multinational Initiatives Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum To facilitate development and deployment of improved cost-effective technologies for CCS Countries and EC Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate To accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy technologies Countries G initiatives on CCS EU-China Near Zero Emissions Coal project (NZEC) 2005 Feasibility study for CCS in China, leading towards demonstration

36 International CCS Project Developments

37 Current CO 2 Injection and Storage Projects 50 Acid Gas injection sites in North America 4 New CO 2 -EOR Pilots in Canada Snohvit Alberta ECBM Teapot Dome Rangely Burlington Zama Penn West Weyburn Mountaineer West Pearl Queen Frio Carson Sleipner K-12B RECOPOL CO 2 SINK In Salah Qinshui Basin Hokkaido Nagaoka 70 CO 2 -EOR projects in U.S.A. Key Depleted Oil Field ECBM projects EOR projects Gas production Fields Otway Basin Saline aquifier

38 Proposed Integrated CCS Projects SaskPower FutureGen HALTEN DF1 Centrica Mongstad E.ON E.ON RWE RWE HypoGen Lacq DF2 DF4 nzec GREENGEN Key LNG Pre-Combustion Capture IGCC DF3 Stanwell Hazelwood Callide Oxy-Fuel Post-Combustion

39 Sleipner, Norway injecting 1mt since 1997

40 Sleipner

41 In Salah Algeria BP with Sonatrach & Statiol Started in 2004 Natural gas clean-up Storing 1 million tons of CO2 annually Injecting into reservoir aquifer

42 Capture from coal gasification in the USA by Dakota Gas Injection for enhanced oil recovery in Canada by Encana Weyburn

43 Including: Recent Project Developments in EU... UK CCS demo full scale, coal, post-combustion, offshore storage Germany Ketzin - injection RWE planning a 450 MWe coal fired IGCC project with on-shore storage Vattenfall have a built a 30 MW CO2 capture pilot plant Plans to build a 300MW demonstration project in Germany EON and Siemens CO2 capture pilot plant France Lacq Project. Total Oxyfuel. 150kt - CO2 aquifer. 27km pipeline Netherlands CO2 injection into K12B field NUON _ IGCC CO2 capture

44 IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme General - g CCS - GHGT-9 16 th 19 th November 2009 Washington D.C.