* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage – What, Why, Where, and Texas’s role
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Energiewende in Germany wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Clean Development Mechanism wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Canada wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage – What, Why, Where, and Texas’s role Tim Dixon CleanTX 21 January 2014 CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) • • • • • Post Combustion • Pre Combustion • Oxy fuel • Pipelines • Ships Capture Oil and gas fields Deep saline aquifers Coal seams Basalt/ Organic-rich Shales Transport Storage Geological storage of CO2 What do we need? SEAL ROCK – nonporous, e.g. claystone RESERVOIR ROCK – porous, e.g. sandstone Claystone seal rock Sandstone reservoir rock J.Kaldi. IEAGHG Summer School 2012 CO2 Storage Trapping Mechanisms From IPCC SRCCS, 2005 CCS in scale Source: DNV Oil & Gas Reservoirs: EOR with CO2 Storage • Proven containment (seal held oil & gas) • Data rich (lots of wells, seismic) • Objective: produce more oil (CO2 storage secondary, but also occurs!) Courtesy Kaldi, 2009 Why CCS ? IPPC AR5 WG1 Climate Change Science - Summary for Policy Makers (Sep2013) • • • • • • • • • “Warming is unequivocal …..” “Each of the last 3 decades have been progressively warmer…” “Ocean warming dominates increase in energy stored….” “Over the last 2 decades polar ice sheets have been losing mass….” “Rate of sea level rise larger than previous millennia…” “Levels of CO2 increased to levels unprecedented in the last 800,000 years..” “CO2 concentration increase by 40%.....” “Ocean absorbed around 30% of emissions causing ocean acidification….” “Human influence on the climate is clear…” Latest news on CO2 concentrations Last time earths atmosphere contained 415ppm CO2 was the Pliocene era between five million and three million years ago. 25th April 2013 CO2 level was 399.72ppm http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/ The 450 Scenario illustrates what the 2⁰C goal will require Gt World energy-related CO2 emissions by scenario 45 40 OECD Non-OECD 28% Current Policies Scenario 35 71% New Policies Scenario 7 Gt 33% 30 15 Gt 65% 25 450 Scenario 20 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2035 Restricting the greenhouse-gas concentration to 450 ppm would limit temperature increase to 2⁰C, compared with 3.5⁰C in the New Policies Scenario & 6⁰C in the Current Policies Scenario © OECD/IEA 2011 CCS is one part of a cost-effective emissions reduction portfolio © OECD/IEA 2013 IEA vision: 120 Gt of CO2 stored by 2050 Goal 1: 2020 Over 30 large projects in operation in power and across a range of industrial processes, storing 50 MtCO2 per year. © OECD/IEA 2013 Goal 2: 2030 Goal 3: 2050 Over 2 GtCO2 is stored per year. CCS routinely used in power and certain industrial applications. Over 7 GtCO2 stored per year. CCS routinely used in all applicable power and industrial applications. CCS is ready for scale-up • Inherent separations commercial in many applications • Capture routes for power being demonstrated Capture technologies are well understood but expensive © OECD/IEA 2013 • 6000km existing pipelines • Existing technical standards • Transport by ship (albeit in small quantities) • Decades of research and pilot projects • Natural CO2 accumulations, acid gas disposal, and EOR • Existing large-scale projects Transport is the most technically mature step in CCS Storage demonstrated; further large-scale experience needed Global CCS Update Active region Very Active region Active region Developing Interest R&D/ Pilots RCSP Phase III: Development Phase Large-Scale Geologic Tests Core Sampling Taken Monitoring Well Installed 5 Characterization Well completed Injection ongoing Nov 2011 1 4 ü Injection Targets - minimum planned volumes ü Two ongoing RCSP Injection Projects 3 Partnership 2 8 9 1 6 7 2 3 Injection Started April 2009 Injection to begin March 2012 Injection Ongoing 2012 Injection Scheduled Injection Scheduled 2013-2015 Note: Some locations presented on map may differ from final injection location 4 5 6 7 8 9 Geologic Province Sweetgrass ArchDuperow Formation Illinois BasinMGSC Mt. Simon Sandstone Michigan BasinMRCSP St Peter SS or Niagaran Reef Powder River BasinMuddy Formation PCOR Alberta BasinSulphur Point Formation Interior Salt BasinTuscaloosa Formation SECARB Interior Salt BasinPaluxy Formation Wasatch PlateauSWP Navajo Sandstone WESTCARB Regional Characterization Big Sky Storage Type Saline Saline Saline/Oil Oil Bearing Saline Oil/Saline Saline Saline TBD Major CCS Demonstration Projects Major CCUS Demonstration Projects 1st Generation Demonstrations Project Locations & Cost Share FutureGen 2.0 Large-Scale Testing of Oxy-Combustion w/ CO2 Capture & Sequestration in Saline Formation ~$1.3B Total; ~$1.0B DOE SALINE – 1.3M TPY 2016 start CCPI ICCS Area 1 FutureGen 2.0 Archer Daniels Midland CO2 Capture from Ethanol Plant CO2 Stored in Saline Reservoir $208M Total; $141M DOE SALINE – ~1 M TPY 2013 start Summit TX Clean Energy Commercial Demo of Advanced IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture ~$1.7B Total; $450M DOE EOR – 3M TPY 2014 start Southern Company Kemper County IGCC Project IGCC-Transport Gasifier w/Carbon Capture ~$2.67B Total; $270M DOE EOR – 3 M TPY 2014 start HECA Commercial Demo of Advanced IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture ~$4B Totall; $408M DOE EOR – 3M TPY 2018 start NRG W.A. Parish Generating Station Post Combustion CO2 Capture $339M Total; $167M DOE EOR – 1.4M TPY 2014 start Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. CO2 Capture from Steam Methane Reformers EOR in Eastern TX Oilfields $431M – Total, $284M – DOE EOR – 1M TPY 2013 start Leucadia Energy CO2 Capture from Methanol Plant EOR in Eastern TX Oilfields $436M - Total, $261M – DOE EOR – 4.5 M TPY 2015 start CCS and Renewable Energy • Concentrated Solar Power – provide heat for CO2 capture processes • Geothermal and CCS • Bio-CCS Why Biomass and CCS - the net carbon balance Positive Less positive Neutral to slightly positive Neutral to slightly positive Neutral to negative Fossil fuels Fossil fuels with CCS Renewable energy Bio-energy Bio-energy with CCS Koornneef, ECOFYS 2010 The challenges to integrating capture, transport and storage Economics • Low or inexistent carbon price • Unvalued benefit of CCS technology learning • Limited business opportunity (EOR, small scale use) Policy • Uncertainty about long term climate mitigation goals • Lack of political recognition of the role of CCS • Lack of or limited incentives for CCS Technology Stakeholder views • High cost of capture • Technical complexity of adding capture • Commercial risks related to storage • Complex commercial arrangements • Opposition to projects in some jurisdictions • Unfavorable views on CCS as perpetuating a fossil fuel world • Concerns over risks of CO2 escape • Lack of understanding by financiers © OECD/IEA 2013 International regulatory developments – why they started happening Role of CCS in climate change mitigation? • IPCC Special Report (2005) – CCS contributing 15-55% of CO2 mitigation to 2100 • G8 2005 recognised CCS at highest level, 5 initiatives • IEA Technology Perspectives (2006) – CCS 20-28% of mitigation to 2050. Second only to energy efficiency. • Stern Report (2006) – CCS ~10% mitigation by 2025, ~20% by 2050. Marginal mitigation costs without CCS increase by ~60%. • 2004/5 Ocean acidification realisation 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. ” London Convention and Protocol • • • • Marine Treaty - Global agreement regulating disposal of wastes and other matter at sea Convention 1972 (86 countries) Protocol 1996 – ratified March 2006 (43 countries as of Jan 2014) Prohibited some CCS project configurations • • CO2 Geological Storage Assessed by LC Scientific Group 2005/6 2006 - Risk Assessment Framework for CO2 • To allow prohibited CCS configurations – Protocol amendment adopted at 28th Consultative Meeting (LP1), 2 Nov 2006 - came into force 10 Feb 2007 to allow disposal in geological formations • CO2 Specific Guidelines 8.6 Simulated and observed marine pH ranges till 2100 8.4 pH range for the last 20 million years 8.2 pH 8 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7 190 ppm 280 ppm 370 ppm 500 ppm Glacial Pre-ind Now 2050 700 ppm 1000 ppm 2100 2100 worst case PML 2005 EU Developments EU Spring Council 2007 - Action Plan for Energy Policy for Europe • Stimulate up to 12 CCS demonstrations by 2015 • Strengthen R&D and develop technical, economic and regulatory framework to bring environmentally-safe CCS to deployment by 2020 • CCS Directive – Environmental protection and enabling regulation • Emissions Trading Directive – GHG emissions • Drafted Jan 2008 - Adopted 6 April 2009, published 5 June 2009 UNFCCC and CCS § United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - 194 Parties, taking action to reduce GHG emissions § Kyoto Protocol - 188 Parties, GHG emission limits on developed countries § Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) § Policy mechanism for rewarding CO2 reduction in developing countries. Project-based carbon credits. § 7,400 projects – 1,400 Mt CO2e Kyoto Protocol and CCS Considering CCS in CDM since 2005 § § § § § § § § § • 2005 CDM Executive Board (EB) considers two new CCS methodologies 2005 CMP1 Montreal § referred to SBSTA 2006 SBSTA Technical workshops - Consideration of technical and policy issues – project boundary, leakage, permanence On agenda of each SBSTA meeting 2007 and 2008 Submissions from Parties and NGOs – two synthesis reports 2008 Decision due at CMP4/COP14 Poznan – failed § CMP request EB to look at implications 2009 EB commission ‘Experts Report’ 2009 Decision due at CMP5/COP15 Copenhagen – failed 2010 CMP6/COP16 Cancun .............. All CCS CDM reports and background http://cdm.unfccc.int/about/ccs/index.html Key issues of concern Included • Timescales of benefits vs liability • Impact on CDM market • Scale and impacts of leakage • Furthering use of fossil fuels – sustainable development • Role of CCS in climate change mitigation • Negotiations characterised by a few countries having strong views against CCS – but UNFCCC needs consensus to progress • UNFCCC CMP/COP16 (2010) Cancun – progress! Eligible if concerns can be addressed in CCS-specific regulations UNFCCC Technical Workshop 2011 Abu Dhabi 7-8 Sep 2011 • Brought technical expertise to negotiators • Technical experts on site selection; modelling; accounting; project boundaries; transboundary; risk assessment; environmental impacts; monitoring; liability (28 talks, several members of IEAGHG Networks). • Results and experiences from real projects and natural systems, to support modelling and risk assessments • Good Q&As from CCS negotiators and others Courtesy UNFCCC / K.Romanak, BEG, UT Courtesy A.Chadwick 2011 Courtesy A.Chadwick 2011 Courtesy A.Chadwick 2011 CO2 at the surface. Natural Analog Chimayo, New Mexico, USA Courtesy K.Romanak 2011 •Integrated field, lab and modeling. •Trace elements are strongly associated with brackish water; in-situ mobilization is negligible Keating et. al., 2010 •Mineral precipitation decreases metal concentrations CMP7/COP17 Durban (2011) Negotiations on CCS CDM • Over 32 hours of formal negotiations – 20 pages – Success! Courtesy H.Olson UT Significance of CCS M&Ps from Durban • Allows CCS to be CDM project activity and earn CERs • Create incentives / signal for CCS in developing countries ê CDM key international mechanism supporting low-C technology in developing countries • Legitimises CCS as valid technology for developing countries • Establishes precedence-setting regulatory framework for CCS funded under international mechanisms Role of Texas in CCS Texas - A leader in CO2 EOR Important industrial analogue SACROC Oilfield, West Texas Ø > 40 years CO2 injection for enhanced oil recovery Ø 150 Mt CO2 injected Ø 75 Mt recovered and recycled Ø No indication of impact to groundwater quality Ø CO2 wants to be stored! Role of Texas in CCS Research and Demonstration University of Texas: • Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) – managing CCS Demonstration projects, developing monitoring techniques, onshore, offshore • Dept Chemical Engineering – advancing CO2 capture technology, eg advanced process for amine scrubbing to reduce costs by 20-30%. Skyonic • Capture of CO2 from cement plant IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG) • A collaborative international research programme founded in 1991 • Aim: To provide information on the role that technology can play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from use of fossil fuels. • Focus is on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) • Producing information that is: ØObjective, trustworthy, independent ØPolicy relevant but NOT policy prescriptive ØReviewed by external Expert Reviewers IEAGHG Flagship Activities • Technical Studies >250 reports published on all aspects of CCS • International Research Networks • GHGT conferences • Risk Assessment • Wellbore Integrity • Monitoring • Modelling • Environmental Impacts • Oxy-combustion - conf • Post-combustion Capture - conf • Solid Looping • Social Research www.GHGT.info 5–9 October 2014 AUSTIN, TX – USA •Call for papers 27th September 2013 •Deadline for abstracts 10th January 2014 •Registration opens 7th March 2014 •Authors notified 2nd May 2014 •Early bird closes 13th June 2014 Opportunities for Involvement : • Attendance • Sponsorships • Exhibition booths Contact: Professor Gary Rochelle, UT, [email protected], tel: 512-471-7230 www.GHGT.info International CCS Summer Schools • 7 Summer Schools • Germany, Canada, Australia, USA, Norway, China, UK • Alumni now 386 • 8th in UT Austin, 6-12 July 2014 (student application deadline 28 Feb 2014) Photo courtesy of L. Gauvreau, Schlumberger Thank You Any questions? [email protected] www.ieaghg.org