Methodology & Results

Transcription

1 Wir schaffen Wissen heute für morgen Evaluation of fossil power plants with CCS: Methodology & Results Christian Bauer Paul Scherrer Institut,, Laboratory for Energy Systems Analysis 2nd ICEPE 2011, Frankfurt, June 20-22, 2011

2 Greenhouse Gas emissions i and climate change + 2 C - 50% until % until source: EC,

3 Key drivers for global CO 2 emissions CO 2 emissions = carbon content of the x energy intensity x production x global energy supply of the economy per person population Needs to be reduced by a factor of 3 for reaching the goal GOAL (global): Reduction by a factor of 6.5 required 50% reduction by 2050 Increase by a factor of 2.15 Needs to be reduced by a factor of 4 for reaching the goal Reduction by a factor of 1.6 (-1% per year) (1.6% growth per year) 50% increase (IPCC 2000) Urgent need for all CO 2 free technologies incl. CCS

4 Thousan nd TWh Thousand TWh Global power generation: scenarios until Baseline Wind LWR Hydro Clean Coal 10 0 Remaining fossil NGCC ppm Wind Biomass Solar PV Hydro LWR Clean Coal CCS Remaining fossil NGCC NGCC CCS Hydro power Wind Nuclear Coal Natural gas Fossil (Rest) Photovoltaics Biomass Coal with CCS Natural gas with CCS source: PS SI, Turton et al. 2009

5 Global CO 2 emissions until 2050 source: OE ECD/IEA 2010

6 CCS technologies Post combustion Coal Gas Air Electricity generation N 2, O 2 CO 2 Separation Coal Air/O 2, Steam CO 2 CO 2 Pre combustion Oxyfuel combustion Gasification Gas Coal Gas Air Reformer & CO 2 sep. Electricity generation Air H 2 N 2, O 2 Electricity generation CO 2 O 2 N 2 Air Separation CO 2 Compression, Transport & Storage (T&S) source: after IPCC 2005

7 CCS projects worldwide (current status) Coal-fired power Natural gas-fired Future plants power plants projects Large scale CCS projects Europe Post: 6 Oxy: 2 Pre: 3 Pilot CCS projects Post: 3 Oxy: 2 Pre: 1 Large scale CCS projects Post: 1 Oxy: 0 Pre: 1 Pilot CCS projects Post: 1 Oxy: 0 Pre: 0 Announced Non-power plant CCS projects NG LNG H2 Other industry Natural sources North America Post: 7 Post: 5 Post: 0 Post: Oxy: 1 Oxy: 1 Oxy: 0 Oxy: 0 Pre: 6 Pre: 0 Pre: 0 Pre: 0 Australia Post: 0 Post: 0 Post: 0 Post: Oxy: 0 Oxy: 1 Oxy: 0 Oxy: 0 Pre: 0 Pre: 0 Pre: 0 Pre: 0 Rest of the world Post: 0 Post: 1 Post: 0 Post: Oxy: 0 Oxy: 0 Oxy: 0 Oxy: 0 Pre: 2 Pre: 0 Pre: 1 Pre: 0 Source: MIT 2011 (

8 coal vs. natural gas plants: state-of-the-art the art CCS Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle CLC Chemical Looping Combustion N/A not available Source: Teir et al. 2010

9 Sustainability assessment How to integrate environmental, economic & social aspects? MCDA ( Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis ) goal: sustainability index / technology ranking for power generation

10 MCDA process: subjective & objective elements Selection of technologies Selection of indicators for technology assessment* Quantification of indicators for each technology Normalisation of indicators Weighting of indicators* * supported/carried out by (web-based) b surveys Aggregation: Combination of indicator values & weighting factors Calculation l of the sustainability index = ranking of technologies

11 Indicators for measuring sustainability (examples) economy: environment: society: costs, security of supply generation costs external costs (health impacts) jobs environment resources, emissions, climate change greenhouse gas emissions consumption of resources society economy impacts on ecosystems acceptance, fairness wastes fatalities due to pollutants and accidents landscape quality

12 Set of Sustainability Criteria (1/3): Economy Source: PSI, Hirschberg et al., 2008

13 Criteria / Indicator Description Unit ECONOMY CUSTOMERS Generation cost SOCIETY Direct jobs Economy related criteria Economic effects on customers This criterion gives the average generation cost per kilowatt-hour (kwh). It includes the capital cost of the plant, (fuel), and operation and maintenance costs. It is not the end price. Economic effects on society This criterion gives the amount of employment directly related to building and operating the generating technology, including the direct labour involved in extracting or harvesting and transporting fuels (when applicable). Indirect labour is not included. Measured in terms of person-years/gwh. /MWh Person-years/GWh Fuel autonomy Electricity it output t may be vulnerable to interruptions ti in service if imported fuels are unavailable due to economic or political l Odi Ordinal problems related to energy resource availability. This measure of vulnerability is based on expert. UTILITY Financial Financing risk Economic effects on utility company Financial impacts on utility Utility companies can face a considerable financial risk if the total cost of a new electricity generating plant is very large compared to the size of the company. It may be necessary to form partnerships with other utilities or raise capital through financial markets. Fuel sensitivity Construction time Operation Marginal cost The fraction of fuel cost to overall generation cost can range from zero (solar PV) to low (nuclear power) to high (gas turbines). This fraction therefore indicates how sensitive the generation costs would be to a change in fuel prices. Once a utility has started building a plant it is vulnerable to public opposition, resulting in delays and other problems. This indicator therefore gives the expected plant construction time in years. Planning and approval time is not included. Factors related to a utility company's operation of a technology. Generating companies dispatch or order their plants into operation according to their variable cost, starting with the lowest cost base-load plants up to the highest cost plants at peak load periods. This variable (or dispatch) cost is the cost to run the plant. Factor Years cents/kwh Flexibility Availability Utilities need forecasts of generation they cannot control (renewable resources like wind and solar), and the necessary start-up and shut-down times required for the plants they can control. This indicator combines these two measures of planning flexibility, based on expert judgment. All technologies can have plant outages or partial outages (less than full generation), due to either equipment failures (forced outages) or due to maintenance (unforced or planned outages). This indicator tells the fraction of the time that the generating plant is available to generate power. Ordinal Factor

14 Set of Sustainability Criteria (2/3): Environment Source: PSI, Hirschberg et al., 2008

15 Criteria / Indicator Description Unit ENVIRONMENT Environment related criteria. RESOURCES Energy Fossil fuels Resource use (non-renewable) Energy resource use in whole life-cycle This criterion measures the total primary energy in the fossil resources used for the production of 1 kwh of electricity. It includes the total coal, natural gas and crude oil used for each complete electricity generation technology chain. MJ/kWh Uranium This criterion quantifies the primary energy from uranium resources used to produce 1 kwh of electricity. It includes the total use MJ/kWh of uranium for each complete electricity generation technology chain. Minerals Metal ore Mineral resource use in whole life-cycle This criterion quantifies the use of selected scarce metals used to produce 1 kwh of electricity. The use of all single metals is expressed in antimony-equivalents, based on the scarcity of their ores relative to antimony. kg(sb-eq.)/kwh CLIMATE Potential impacts on the climate CO2 emissions This criterion includes the total for all greenhouse gases expressed in kg of CO2 equivalent. kg(co2-eq.)/kwh ECOSYSTEMS Potential impacts to ecosystems Normal operation Ecosystem impacts from normal operation Biodiversity This criterion quantifies the loss of species (flora & fauna) due to the land used to produce 1 kwh of electricity. The "potentially damaged fraction" (PDF) of species is multiplied by land area and years. PDF*m2*a/kWh Ecotoxicity This criterion quantifies the loss of species (flora & fauna) due to ecotoxic substances released to air, water and soil to produce 1 kwh of electricity. The "potentially damaged fraction" (PDF) of species is multiplied by land area and years. Air pollution This criterion quantifies the loss of species (flora & fauna) due to acidification and eutrophication caused from production of 1 kwh of electricity. The "potentially damaged fraction" (PDF) of species is multiplied by land area and years. Severe accidents Ecosystem impacts in the event of severe accidents PDF*m2*a/kWh PDF*m2*a/kWh Hydrocarbons This criterion quantifies large accidental spills of hydrocarbons (at least tonnes) which can potentially damage t/kwh ecosystems. Land contamination This criterion quantifies land contaminated due to accidents releasing radioactive isotopes. The land area contaminated is km2/kwh estimated using Probabilistic Safety Analysis (PSA). Note: only for nuclear electricity generation technology chain. WASTE Potential impacts due to waste Chemical waste This criterion quantifies the total mass of special chemical wastes stored in underground repositories due to the production of 1 kwh of electricity. It does not reflect the confinement time required for each repository. Radioactive waste This criterion quantifies the volume of medium and high level radioactive wastes stored in underground repositories due to the production of 1 kwh of electricity. It does not reflect the confinement time required for the repository. kg/kwh m3/kwh

16 Set of Sustainability Criteria (3/3): Social Source: PSI, Hirschberg et al., 2008

17 Set of Sustainability Criteria (3/3): Social example Source: PSI, Hirschberg et al., 2008

18 Set of Sustainability Criteria: Social 3rd level Source: PSI, Hirschber rg et al., 2008

19 Economy: power generation cost vs. CO 2 emissions (today) / MWh] New plants with CCS Pow wer gener ration costs [US$ New coal and nat. gas power plants w/o CCS CO 2 emissions [kg / MWh] source: IPCC 2005

20 Power generation costs with and w/o CCS Capital cost Fixed O&M Variable O&M Compression, pipeline, storage O&M Fuel cost source: Volkart 2011

21 Sensitivity analysis for power generation costs source: Volkart 2011

22 Environment: based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Carbon Capture & Storage Depth drilling Stored CO 2 CO 2 injection Boundary of the energy chain Boundary of the LCA CO 2 transport CO 2 separation direct Natural gas production Nat. gas transport Power plant, operation electricity [1 kwh] Consumption background data Fuels Electricity Materials for infrastrucutre Transports indirect Environmental burdens (emissions etc.)

23 GHG emissions fossil power generation p 2 p g p CCS min : oxyfuel comb.; 200km CO 2 transport; 800m storage depth PSI, NEEDS, CCS max : post comb.; 400km CO2 transport; 2500m storage depth Source:

24 LCA results: Greenhouse gas emissions year 2005 year 2030 CCS: g (CO2 -eq..)/kwh Nuc clear Hard Coal, Germ many Natural gas, CC Natural gas, CHP Natural gas, SOFC Hydro, run-of-r river Hydro, reser ervoir Biogas, CHP SNG, CHP Wind, onshore, CH Wind nd, onsh., Germ many Wind nd, offsh., Denm mark n.a. PV, mc-si PV, a-si a Geother ermal Bauer at al. 2008

25 LCA results: GHG emissions, hard coal post-combustion CCS max: 400 km / 2500 m oxyfuel combustion CCS min: 200 km / 800 m kg CO 2 -e eq / kwh minus 63% w/o CCS with CCS CO 2 transport & storage pp infrastructure pp operation coal supply 9-74% w/o CCS - 81% - 87% Source: PSI, NEEDS, 2009

26 Electricity, hard coal*: GHG emissions vs. fuel consumption relative e scale relative e Skala % -72% Treibhausgas-Emissionen Greenhouse g emissions Brennstoffverbrauch Fuel consumption +28% +23% -74% -75% ohne w/o CCS with mit CCS ohne w/o CCS with mit CCS ohne w/o CCS with mit CCS Source: PSI, NEEDS, 2009 * RO scenario; post combustion capture

27 LCIA results, lignite: aggregated environmental burdens Source: Volkart, 2011

28 External costs, year 2050 (realistic-optimistic i scenario) ext ternal cos sts [ cent 2005 / kw Wh] PC w/o CCSCS PC oxyfuel comb CCSCS PC Cpost comb CCSCS PC w/o CCSCS climate change - damage costs high climate change - damage costs low land use material damage crop pyield losses biodiversity health impacts Hard coal Lignite Nat. gas PC oxyfuel comb CCSCS PC Cpost comb CCSCS CC w/o CCSCS CC Cpost comb CCSCS Source: NEEDS, 2009

29 MCDA process: subjective & objective elements Selection of technologies Selection of indicators for technology assessment* Quantification of indicators for each technology Normailisation of indicators Weighting of indicators* * supported/carried out by (web-based) b surveys Aggregation: Combination of indicator values & weighting factors Calculation l of the sustainability index = ranking of technologies

30

31 Distribution of indicator weights Source: PS SI, Schenler et al., 2009

32 Weighting of MCDA indicators ECONOMY 27% al., 2009 Source: PSI, Schenler et a SOCIAL ASPECTS 24% 1 st levell 2 nd level ENVIRONMENT 49% Social & individual Local effects on risks residential areas 7% 5% Political stability & Resources legitimacy 11% 5% Security of power supply 7% Effects on the utility/operator 8% Effects on the national economy 7% Electricity production costs 13% Waste 8% Climate change 18% Ecosystem quality 11%

33 Distribution of stakeholder weights 159 respondents, mainly research result is NOT representative for the public opinion al., 2009 Source: PSI, Schenler et a Environment Economy Society

34 MCDA Results: Total Costs vs. MCDA ranking Nuclear Fossil Renewable Worst 16 GHG em. High GHG em. Low Pollution Land use Generation cost Total costs = generation costs + externalities [ cents / kwh] nking Averagee MCDA Ra Best EU Fast EPR t Reactor Pulverised Coal (PC) PC & Post comb.ccs PC & Oxyfuel CCS Integrated Gasification Int. Gasification & CCS Combined Cycle (CC) CC & Post comb. CCS Internal Comb. <1MW MC Fuel cell <1MW MC Fuel cell <1MW SRC Poplar 9MW Waste straw 9MW PV, Thin-film, small sc. Thermal power plant Offshore 24MW Source: PSI, Schenler et al., 2009 (reduced set of technologies) GEN GEN III IV NUCLEAR COAL NATURAL GAS NAT. GAS CHP BIOMASS CHP SOLAR WIND

35 Conclusions Any option for GHG reduction needs to be evaluated concerning sustainability before large-scale implementation considering environmental, economic & social aspects CCS in fossil power generation significantly reduces GHG emissions BUT: high energy demand for CO 2 capture & storage additional CO 2 emissions from the energy chain additional fossil fuel demand and associated environmental burdens Significant increase in costs of fossil power generation with CCS Nevertheless: CCS must be an important t part in a portfolio of GHG reduction measures; for both coal & natural gas CCS should be considered d as bridging bid i technology towards a sustainable energy supply worldwide

36 Thank you for your attention! Contact: ch/

37 Zusätzlicher Kraftwerksbedarf weltweit bis 2050 Quelle: OE CD/IEA 2010

38 Current assumptions in LCA modeling of CO 2 capture Source: NEEDS, 2009

39 LCA perspective: CO 2 captured vs. CO 2 avoided Without CCS With CCS CO 2 avoided CO 2 captured CO 2 emitted infrastructure fuel & other supplies CO 2 emitted CO 2 captured

40 CO 2 capture technologies Source: Viebahn et al. 2008

41 Post-combustion capture (Natural gas) Source: Rubin et al. 2007

42 Oxy-fuel combustion (Natural gas) Source: IPCC 2005 (p. 126)

43 Pre-combustion capture