Post on 16-Apr-2018
transcript
CO2 Capture and Sequestration (CCS)
Is it Relevant for India?
Anand B. Rao
Associate Professor
Centre for Technology Alternatives for Rural Areas (CTARA),
Department of Energy Science & Engineering,
and Inter-Disciplinary Program in Climate Studies
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay, Mumbai, INDIA
a.b.rao@iitb.ac.in
CCJ Conference: Carbon Capture, Storage and Reuse in India
IIT Bombay, 30/09/2016
Outline
Energy Scenario – India & the World
Potential Impacts of CCS
Performance, cost, environmental emissions using IECM
Major Concerns/ Issues regarding CCS
Technical, socio-economic, legal, regulatory, strategic
Relevance of CCS
Potential, current status
Response to Climate Change
Strategic Response to Climate Change
Mitigation
Prevention Abatement
Geo-engineering
Adaptation
Electricity Generation by Source (2013)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
China USA India Rest of Asia
tri
llio
n k
Wh
Coal Oil Gas Biofuels Waste Nuclear Hydro Geothermal Solar PV Solar Thermal Wind Tidal Others
(Source: Key World Energy Statistics 2014, International Energy Agency )
3,030
780
3,780
12,990
920
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
World India China USA Rest of Asia
Per Capita Electricity Consumption (2013)
(kWh/person/year)
Dealing with Energy Poverty in India
Issues with the Rural Electrification:
Access: Poor access and consumption with high inequity
Availability
Reliability
Quality
Affordability
Challenges before the Power Sector:
Capacity: Weak infrastructure (electricity, railways etc.)
Not rich in resources: hydrocarbons, land, water, capital
Efficiency: Need to improve; Poor environmental management
Cost: Need to minimize the cost of power generation
Overall Modeling Framework for
Carbon Management Options
Power
Generation
Environmental
Controls
CO2 Product
transport &
Storage/disposal
CO2
Capture
Criteria &
Hazardous
Pollutants
Deep Saline Reservoirs
Oil and Gas Wells
Deep Coal Seams
Air or
Pure O2
Coal or
Natural Gas
Simple Cycles
Combined Cycles Commercial
Advanced
Impacts of CCS: Using IECM-CS Model
To estimate the impact of
CCS on the performance
and economics of a power
plant
Performance (Energy Penalty)
Cost (Capex, COE, $/tCO2 av.)
Environmental Emissions
Available at:
www.iecm-online.com
Widely used
Anand B. Rao, CTARA, IIT-Bombay
IECM-cs Software Package
Fuel Properties
Heating Value
Composition
Delivered Cost
Plant Design
Furnace Type
Emission Controls
Solid Waste Mgmt
Chemical Inputs
Cost Data
O&M Costs
Capital Costs
Financial Factors
Power
Plant
Model
Graphical
User
Interface
Session
& Fuel
Databases
Plant & Process
Performance
Environmental
Emissions
Plant & Process
Costs
Anand B. Rao, CTARA, IIT-Bombay
IECM-cs Model: Salient Features
Estimation of the performance and costs is directly linked
Multi-pollutant interactions taken into account
Capable of probabilistic analysis
User-friendly graphical interface
Transparent (model inputs and default assumptions)
Provides consistent basis to compare various technology options
Energy Penalty
CCS energy penalty as the increase in energy input per unit of product output due to CCS
EP = (ηref / ηccs ) – 1
As per the IPCC Special Report on CCS, the energy penalty in case of various types of plants: PC = 27% (22-29%)
IGCC = 16% (12-22%)
Oxyfuel = 25% (15-43%)
NGCC = 15% (14-16%)
(IPCC, 2005)
Cost of CCS
Bulk of the cost: Capture (and compression)
Potential revenue: EOR/ ECBM (early adopters)
(IPCC, 2005)
$28-111/tCO2
$1.7-14.8/tCO2
$7-13/tCO2
Rubin et al. (2015)
Major Concerns or Issues
Technical: Feasibility; Scale-up; Experience
Economic: Expensive; Need for incentives; Viability?
Social: Public acceptance?
Health/Safety: Risk of slow/ accidental leakage
Environmental: Local AQ trade-offs; Continued
dependence on fossil fuels?
Legal: Property rights; Long-term liability
Regulatory: Uncertainty; Need for regulatory framework
Strategic: Delay in real action; Diversion of funds/
efforts; CCS under CDM?
NRCCC, 05/03/2010 Anand B. Rao, CTARA, IIT Bombay
Major Concerns or Issues
Technical: Feasibility; Scale-up; Experience
Economic: Expensive; Need for incentives; Viability?
Social: Public acceptance?
Health/Safety: Risk of slow/ accidental leakage
Environmental: Local AQ trade-offs; Continued
dependence on fossil fuels?
Legal: Property rights; Long-term liability
Regulatory: Uncertainty; Need for regulatory framework
Strategic: Delay in real action; Diversion of funds/
efforts; CCS under CDM?
NRCCC, 05/03/2010 Anand B. Rao, CTARA, IIT Bombay
CCS Risks
Local Global
Surface release
Suffocation
Ecosystem
impacts (tree roots,
ground animals)
CO2 in subsurface
Metals mobilisation
Other contaminant
mobilisation
Quantity-based
Ground heave
Induced seismicity
Displacement of
groundwater
resources
Damage to
hydrocarbon
production
Surface
release
CO2 back to
the atmosphere
Source: Wilson and Keith (2002)
Local EHS regulatory issues
International issue
(UNFCCC/Kyoto)
NRCCC, 05/03/2010 Anand B. Rao, CTARA, IIT Bombay
Major Concerns or Issues
Technical: Feasibility; Scale-up; Experience
Economic: Expensive; Need for incentives; Viability?
Social: Public acceptance?
Health/Safety: Risk of slow/ accidental leakage
Environmental: Local AQ trade-offs; Continued
dependence on fossil fuels?
Environmental Impacts
Fuel and reagent consumption ↑
Solid wastes and byproducts ↑
Emission rates of certain pollutants may ↑
Possible
CO2
emissions
Major Concerns or Issues
Technical: Feasibility; Scale-up; Experience
Economic: Expensive; Need for incentives; Viability?
Social: Public acceptance?
Health/Safety: Risk of slow/ accidental leakage
Environmental: Local AQ trade-offs; Continued
dependence on fossil fuels?
Legal: Property rights; Long-term liability
Regulatory: Uncertainty; Need for regulatory framework
Strategic: Delay in real action; Diversion of funds/
efforts; CCS under CDM?
Is it worth trying? Can it be made worthwhile?
India and Climate Change
Not a major contributor to the problem (cause); Potential to be part of the solution (mitigation)
Hansen, 2006
India and Climate Change
Not a major contributor to the problem (cause); Potential to be part of the solution (mitigation)
Likely to face disproportionate impacts (extreme events, agriculture, sea-level rise, water availability....)
Vulnerability issues; Need for adaptation and mitigation
Relevance of CCS
Carbon Management Options: Improvements in conversion and generation efficiency
Use of low-C or non-C fuels or energy sources
CO2 Capture and sequestration (CCS)
A Bridging Technology: May allow us to continue the use of conventional fossil fuels without
worrying about the greenhouse effect
CCS as a Carbon Management Option:
How much can we store?
At what cost?
Is the technology ready?
CCS as a Carbon Management Tool
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095
Em
iss
ion
s (
MtC
O2 p
er
ye
ar)
Conservation
and Energy
Efficiency
Renewable
Energy
Nuclear
Coal to Gas
Substitution
CCS
Allowable
Emissions for
WRE 550
Emissions to the atmosphere
MiniCAM
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095
Conservation and
Energy Efficiency
Renewable Energy
Nuclear
Coal to Gas
Substitution
CCSEmissions to the atmosphere
MESSAGE
(IPCC, 2007)
Critical share
Global Cost Curve for GHG Abatement Measures
beyond “Business As Usual”
Ref: Enkvist et al., McKinsey & Company, 2007 (page 38)
Marginal cost of avoiding emissions of 1 ton CO2eq in each abatement demand scenario
Indian Scenario
In 2014 India’s CO2 emissions totalled 1,931 Mt (BP, 2014);
~ 60% from large (>0.1 Mt) stationary sources.
(Holloway for IEAGHG R&D Programme, 2008)
India CO2 Emissions by Storage Reservoir Type
and Distance to Large Stationary CO2 Sources
CO2 Reservoir Type <100 km
(Mt)
<20 km
(Mt)
Oil and Gas Fields 77 6
Deep Saline Aquifers 106 41
Coal Fields 305 95
Total for All Reservoir Types 488 142
CCS in India
CCS = Capture + Compression + Transport + Storage + Monitoring?
US/EU: Need to first resolve the issues related to technical feasibility, economic viability, future liability and public acceptance
Need for detailed assessment of CCS potential in India CO2 sequestration in SW India
[NGRI, PNNL, NTPC]
UCG (+ CCS?) projects in RJ, OR [GAIL, ONGC, IITB, IITM, BHEL]
Methods for storing CO2 in deep underground geological formations
SRCCS Figure TS-7
Conclusion
CCS is a potential mitigation option, but it needs to
overcome several barriers/challenges
The key challenges are: technical feasibility &
scaleup, economic viability and public acceptance
Our priorities as a developing country: Enhancing
capacity; Improving energy efficiency; Reducing
Costs (NOT CCS!!)
RD&D in CCS: Flexibility of future policy options; A
low-cost insurance policy against future
uncertainty (Shackley & Verma, 2008)
Please remember..
We have not inherited this earth
from our ancestors….
We have only borrowed it
from our future generations!
References
[1] https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large-scale-ccs-projects#map
[2] http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index.html
[3] http://www.saskpower.com/about-us/media-information/news-releases/ccs-performance-data-exceeding-expectations-at-world-first-
boundary-dam-power-station-unit-3/
[4] http://saskpowerccs.com/ccs-projects/boundary-dam-carbon-capture-project/
[5] http://www.afr.com/business/energy/saskpowers-mike-monea-on-carbon-capture-and-storage-20150519-gh4q8d
[6] Lincoln L. Davies, Kirsten Uchitel, John Ruple, Understanding barriers to commercial-scale carbon capture and sequestration in the
United States: An empirical assessment, Energy Policy, April 2013
[7] Samuela Bassi, Rodney Boyd, Simon Buckle, Paul Fennell, Bridging the gap: improving the economic and policy framework for carbon
capture and storage in the European Union, June 2015
[8] Tim Dixona, Sean T. McCoyb, Ian Havercroft, Legal and Regulatory Developments on CCS International Journal of Green house gas
control, May 2015
[9] Bart W. Terwel, Fieke Harinck, Naomi Ellemers, Dancker D.L. Daamen, Going beyond the properties of CO2 capture and storage (CCS)
technology: How trust in stakeholders affects public acceptance of CCS, International Journal of Greenhouse gas control, October 2010
[10] SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER 364, Public Awareness and Acceptance of CO2 capture and storage, 2011
[11] Cancelled and Inactive Projects, March 2016, https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_cancelled.html
[12] http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
[13] IEA Report on “Potential for biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage”, 06, 2011,
http://www.ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Reports/2011-06.pdf
[14] Biomass with CO2 Capture and Storage (Bio-CCS) - The way forward for Europe, European Technology Platform for Zero Emission
Fossil Fuel Power Plants, Published 20-06-12.
[15] European Commission Energy Roadmap 2050, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0885&rid=1
[16] Global Status of BECCS Projects 2010, Global CCS Institute, Biorecro, Published: 01 Nov 2010
[17] ILLINOIS INDUSTRIAL CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE PROJECT, project overview, lessons, & future plans, 2012,
https://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Events/2012/CO2%20Capture%20Meeting/S-McDonald-ADM-Illinois-CCS.pdf