Download Carbon Capture and Storage The Developments Worldwide

Carbon Capture and Storage
The Developments Worldwide
Tim Dixon
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
EEF - February 19th 2008
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Introduction
• Introduction to IEA GHG
• What
at iss CCS ?
• Why CCS ? Fossil fuels and climate change
• Is it safe ?
• International policy and regulatory developments
• International project developments
www.ieagreen.org.uk
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
y external Expert
p Reviewers
• Subject to review of policy implications by Members
•
Activities: Studies (>100), R&D networks (6), Communications :f ilit ti and
facilitating
d focussing
f
i R&D and
d demonstration
d
t ti activities
ti iti
Funding approximately 2 million €/year.
•
www.ieagreen.org.uk
www.ieagreen.org.uk
What is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)?
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Carbon Capture and Storage
Capture
85-90%
Transport
Storage
www.ieagreen.org.uk
CO2 Storage
•
Saline
Aquifers
•
Depleted
oil/gas
reservoirs
•
Enhanced Oil
Recovery
•
Enhanced
Coal Bed
Methane
www.ieagreen.org.uk
CO2 Trapping Mechanisms
•
Physically trapped beneath caprock
timescale: immediately
•
CO2 is trapped by capillary forces
timescale: 1- 100s yrs
•
CO2 dissolves in water
timescale: 1-1000s yrs
•
CO2 converts to solid minerals
timescale: 100s – 10,000s yrs
•
Trapping becomes more secure with time
www.ieagreen.org.uk
CO2 Storage Capacity
Storage Option
Global
C
Capacity
it - Gt
CO2
Depleted gas fields
690
Depleted oil fields/CO2EOR
120
Deep saline aquifers
400 - 10 000
Unminable coal seams
40
Global CO2
emissions ~30 Gt pa
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Costs - UK power generation costs
((central assumptions with EU
EU--ETS))
Offshore Wind (100MW)
Onshore Wind (80MW)
Nuclear
CCGT with CCS
IGCC with CCS
•ROC
buyout
price
•Market
Market
price
price
2006
PF with FGD with CCS
Retrofit PF with FGD with CCS
CCGT
Market
price
02/2008
IGCC
PF with FGD
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
£/MWh
Ie CCS = 12.5-25% increase coe
www.ieagreen.org.uk
•UK DTI Energy Review 2006
Why CCS ?
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Predicted Future Global Warming
•Global Temperature
•Global CO2 Emissions
•Source: IPCC 2007
www.ieagreen.org.uk
12
STERN REVIEW: The Economics of Climate Change
(already at about 430 ppm CO2e – all GHG
GHG, not just CO2)
www.ieagreen.org.uk
World Primary Energy Demand
•Other renewables
•Biomass
•Hydro
•Nuclear
•Gas
•Oil
Oil
•Coal
•billionn tonnes of ooil equivalent
•18
•16
•14
•12
•10
•8
•66
•4
•2
•0
•1980
•1990
•2000
•2010
•2020
•2030
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)
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Reference Scenario:
China & India in Global CO2 Emissions
•Cumulative Energy-Related CO2 Emissions
•United States
•European Union
•Japan
•China
•1900-2005
•2006-2030
•India
•0
•100
•200
•300
•billion tonnes
•400
•500
•Around 60% of the global increase in emissions in 2005
2005-2030
2030
•comes from China & India
www.ieagreen.org.uk
No one solution is enough
45
42 Gt
CCS in industry - 3%
CCS in power generation - 9%
Nuclear - 13%
40
Renewables - 20%
35
2
30
End Use electricity efficiency - 17%
Gt of CO
Switching from coal to gas - 8%
25
E d Use
End
U fuel
f l efficiency
ffi i
- 30%
27 Gt
20
23 Gt
Source: IEA
World Energy
Outlook 2007
15
10
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
•WEO Conclusion : Next 10 years are critical - The pace of capacity additions
will be most rapid - Technologywww.ieagreen.org.uk
will be “locked-in” for decades
Role of CCS in climate change mitigation?
• IPCC Special Report (2005) – CCS contributing 15-55% of CO2
mitigation to 2100
gy Perspectives
p
((2006)) – CCS 20-28% of
• IEA Technology
mitigation to 2050. Second only to energy efficiency.
• Stern Report (2006) – CCS ~10% mitigation by 2025, ~20% by
2050 Marginal
2050.
M i l mitigation
iti ti costs
t without
ith t CCS iincrease b
by ~60%.
60%
• EC/Shell (2007) - 7 yrs delay CCS = 90GT CO2 to 2050 = 3 yrs
global emissions = 10ppm
• World Energy Outlook 2007. “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”.
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Is it Safe ?
www.ieagreen.org.uk
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
case, could be retained for up to millions of years.
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.”
www.ieagreen.org.uk
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
g – monitoring
gp
plan
Reporting – inc CO2 inj and emissions from storage site
•
For appropriately selected and managed sites, supports zero leakage
assumption unless monitoring indicates otherwise
www.ieagreen.org.uk
IPCC Guidelines for GHG – cont.
Monitoring Plan
•
•
•
•
•
Measurement of background fluxes of CO2
Continuous measurement of CO2 injected
Monitoring of injection emissions
P i di monitoring
Periodic
it i off CO2 di
distribution
t ib ti
Monitoring of CO2 fluxes to surface
•
Post-injection
j
monitoring
g – as above,, linked to modelling,
g, may
y 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
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Site Characterisation and Modelling
Year 2021
Y
Year
5019
Year 2412
Year 2621
Year 7018
•Kilde: Gemini No. 1, 2004 (NTNU and Sintef)
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Monitoring
4D seismic used to monitor the CO2 plume Statoil 2007
www.ieagreen.org.uk
If leakage were to occur ?
Remediation methods available from oil and g
gas expertise
p
• Well integrity
•
•
•
•
Re-seal and re-plug well (cement, heavy mud)
Repair or replace well casing/tubing/packing
Intercept well
- long-established techniques
• Caprock
C
k
•
•
•
•
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
www.ieagreen.org.uk
I t
International
ti
l Policy
P li and
dR
Regulatory
l t
Developments
www.ieagreen.org.uk
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
• 2006 - Risk Assessment Framework for CO2
•
Amendment adopted at 28th Consultative Meeting, 2 Nov 2006 p
of:came into force 10 Feb 2007 - to allow disposal
“ CO2 streams from CO2 capture processes for sequestration...”
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Simulated and observed marine pH
g till 2100
ranges
8.6
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
www.ieagreen.org.uk
2100
2100 worst
case
PML
2005
•PML: Impacts and Feedbacks in a High CO2 World?
•Synergistic Effects
•Climate Change
•Ocean Acidification
•Feedbacks with
ocean acidification
•Increased thermal and
freshwater
stratification
•Biogases: sea/air
flux
•Feedbacks with
climate change
•CH4, N2O, DMS…
•Decreasing
surface ocean pH
•Ocean CO2
uptake
•C, N,
•P, Si, S
Modelling
•Pelagic biodiversity
and biogeochemistry
Experimentation
•Decreasing
nutrient and O2 flux
Observation
•Benthic-Pelagic
coupling
•Benthic biodiversity
and biogeochemistry
•Turley, Plymouth Marine Laboratory
www.ieagreen.org.uk
•Meroplankton:
larvae and
juveniles
Example: Leakage at a rate of 3 million tons CO2 per year
•Slide courtesy Ken Caldeira; Data Chen et al., 2005
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Simulation of a continuous leak over 1 year
pH anomaly compared with no leak - based on capacity of one
pipeline
•-0.02
ƒShort term leak will have a very small and spatially limited impact
ƒA 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., 2007. pH variability and CO2 induced acidification in the North Sea. Journal of Marine Systems 64
www.ieagreen.org.uk
OSPAR
•
•
Marine Treaty
y for NE Atlantic
15 nations and EC
•
•
•
CCS scenarios prohibited
Considered CO2 impacts on seas
Considered CCS
•
OSPAR amendments (to Annexes II and
III) for CO2 storage adopted June 2007
• OS
OSPAR Decision – requirement to use Guidelines
G
when permitting,
including risk assessment and management process
• OSPAR Guidelines for Risk Assessment and Management of Storage
of CO2 in Geological Formations
www.ieagreen.org.uk
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
y if “no significant
g
risk of leakage”
g
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
g
y barriers in other Directives – IPPC,, Waste,, LCPD,,
Water, EIA, ELD
Capture-ready
www.ieagreen.org.uk
ETS Directive
To strengthen, expand and improve the ETS from 2013
CCS
• Can already be included in Phase II (2008-2012) 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
www.ieagreen.org.uk
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
M t existing
Most
i ti llaws cover; permitting,
itti
construction,
t ti
operational
ti
l and
d
abandonment phases but NOT post closure
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Multinational Initiatives
•
Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum
• To facilitate development and deployment of improved cost-effective
technologies for CCS
• 2003. 21 Countries and EC
•
Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate
• To accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy
technologies
• 2006. 6 Countries
•
G8 – 2005. 5 initiatives on CCS
•
EU-China
EU
China Near Zero Emissions Coal project (NZEC) 2005
•
Feasibility study for CCS in China, leading towards demonstration
www.ieagreen.org.uk
International CCS Project Developments
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Current CO2 Injection and Storage Projects
50 Acid Gas
injection sites in
North America
4 New CO2-EOR Pilots in
Canada
Snohvit
Sleipner
Zama
P
Penn
West
W t
Weyburn
•Mountaineer
Alberta ECBM
Teapot Dome
Rangely
Burlington
K-12B
K
12B
CO2 SINK
RECOPOL
•Qinshui
Basin
•West Pearl Queen
•Frio
•Carson
Hokkaido
Nagaoka
In Salah
70 CO2-EOR
projects in U.S.A.
Key
Depleted Oil Field
ECBM projects
Otway Basin
EOR projects
j t
Gas production Fields
Saline aquifier
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Proposed Integrated CCS Projects
SaskPower
FutureGen
HALTEN
DF1
Mongstad
Centrica
E.ON
E.ON
RWE RWE
HypoGen
Lacq
GREENGEN
DF2
DF4
nZEC
Key
Stanwell
LNG
DF3
Pre-Combustion Capture
Callide
Hazelwood
IGCC
Oxy-Fuel
Post-Combustion
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Sleipner,, Norway – injecting 1mt since 1997
Sleipner
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Sleipner
www.ieagreen.org.uk
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
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Weyburn
• Capture from coal
gasification in the USA by
Dakota Gas
• Injection for enhanced oil
recovery in Canada by
Encana
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Recent Project Developments in EU.......
Including:
g
• 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
F
• Lacq Project. Total. 2008. Oxyfuel. 150kt - CO2 aquifer. 27km
pipeline
• Netherlands
• CO2 injection into K12B field
• NUON _ IGCC CO2 capture
www.ieagreen.org.uk
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
• General - www.ieagreen.org.uk
g
g
• CCS - www.co2captureandstorage.info
•GHGT-9
•16th – 19th November
2009
•Washington D.C.
•www.mit.edu/ghgt9
www.ieagreen.org.uk