Dipl. Wi.Ing. Johannes Herold Prof. Dr. Christian von Hirschhausen

Transkript

1 kraftwerke 1. März 2011 Das ökonomische und technische Potential von CCTS im Energie- und Industriesektor Dipl. Wi.Ing. Johannes Herold Prof. Dr. Christian von Hirschhausen - 1 -

2 Main Messages 1. The potential contribution of CCTS to a decarbonised European electricity sector should be reconsidered given new data available on CCTS costs, a better understanding of the complexity of the process chain and the lowered CO 2 storage potential. 2. The real bottleneck towards CCTS is the transport and storage infrastructure: absent easily accessible onshore storage sites, CCTS may become prohibitively expensive if moved offshore. 3. The focus of CCTS-policies should be shifted from the energy sector to CO 2 -intensive industrial sectors. Due to a larger number of small emissions sources, this will pose higher challenges to network development

3 CCTS Value Chain Storage, should include local pipelines Enhanced Oil/ Gas/ Coal bed methane recovery Depleted oil and gas fields Aquifers, saline formations Transport, should include main Pipelines Pipelines, economic for large quantities Ship, e.g. transport of natural gas from the Middle East, taking CO 2 back for EOR, EGR Road or rail, for pilot plants Capture, Cleaning, Compression Post-combustion capture Oxy-fuel Pre-combustion capture - 3 -

4 CC(TS) Today Malaysia, Gas boiler with CO2 capture to Urea production, 200t/d Brasil, from methanol plant. 90 t/d food-grade CO2 to soft drinks. Since Warrior Run Coal power plant. Food-grade CO2, capture from flue gases. Since Bellingham Gas power plant with CO2 capture for food grade India, CO2 Source: Nat. Gas Reformer Capacity: 450 t/d Product: Urea 330 t/d, Japan, Natural-gas, and oil-fired boiler To dry ice, beverages, and welding. Source: Gjerset, 2010 Sumitomo Chemicals Plant Flue gases from gas, coal/oil boilers t/d food-grade CO2. Operating since Shady Point Subbituminous coal. 200 ton CO2/day. Operation since 1991.

5 CO 2 -Capturing Leads to Increased Capital Costs and a Lower Thermal Efficiency Technology Investments 08 /kw Efficiency [%] Pulverized fuel (PF) with separation IGCC with separation Oxyfuel Demonstration projects are needed to validate and further improve the technology. Source: Tzimas,

6 CO 2 -Storage Potentials for Germany are Limited, and Estimates are Regularly Decreasing Source: Höller,

7 German Storage Potential 408 potential storage locations, but regionally agglomerated However, only a small share large enough to justify an investment. Offshore storage is limited and expensive. There may be alternative utilizations Storage in Brandenburg only will not enable CCTS. Source: Greenpeace, 2011 based on BGR (2011) Data - 7 -

8 Baseline scenario: Wishful Thinking (1) PRIMES Energy System Forecast (Sep. 2010) For CCS, the scenarios assume that the infrastructure and the regulations will deploy and become operational after (p. 23) 5.4 GW installed by GW installed by 2030; ~ 8.7% of total generation (23.6% CO2 captured) Source: PRIMES data for the European Commission - September

9 Wishful Thinking (2): Investment Needs for CCTS Additional investment needs for CCTS over the next ten years. IEA, 2009 The next 10 years are a critical period for CCTS (IEA, 2009). Global CO 2 pipeline development IEA, 2009 IEA., 2009 Among the 62 announced CO 2 capture projects, only 7 projects are operating on the pilot scale. Assuming that all of the announced projects are realized by 2050 there still remains a gap of 40 projects to reach the IAE blue map scenario. This gap is higher with respect to regional projections. Only Europe could reach the IEA forecast by 2020 given 37 announced CCTS projects. IEA.,

10 Wishful Thinking (3): Announced EU Demonstration Projects (2008) Source: BOLESTA,

11 Reality Check CCTS Power Projects Operating 2010 (selected) AEP Alstom Mountaineer, (5) Longannet Power Station, 1 20 MW MW E.ON Karlshamn, 5 MW Doosan Babcock s OxyCoal, 40 MW Vattenfall Schwarze Pumpe, 30 MW Beijing, 10 kt/year Total Laqc, 35 MW RWE Niederaußem, 0.5 MW Source: EPRTR, 2011 The IEA Blue Map Scenario outlines a need of 100 serious CCTS demonstration projects until 2020!

12 Main Messages 1. The potential contribution of CCTS to a decarbonised European electricity sector should be reconsidered given new data available on CCTS costs, a better understanding of the complexity of the process chain and the lowered CO 2 storage potential. 2. The real bottleneck towards CCTS is the transport and storage infrastructure: absent easily accessible onshore storage sites, CCTS may become prohibitively expensive if moved offshore. 3. The focus of CCTS-policies should be shifted from the energy sector to CO 2 -intensive industrial sectors. Due to a larger number of small emissions sources, this will pose higher challenges to network development

13 Model Description Mendelevitch, R., Oei, P.Y., Tissen, A. and Herold, J. (2010): CO 2 Highways. DIW Discussion Paper min xpa, inv _ xpa, zpa, fija, inv _ f, land, y, inv _ y ijda ija Sa Sa ( a start) 1 h= c c Pa Pa + _ inv _ xp inv _ xpa + a a 1+ r P [ _ cs x c cert z ] + Eij L c_ f f + ija ( c_ inv_ fd inv _ fijd ) + c _ land landija ) i j [ c_ stor y c_ inv _ y inv _ y ] + Sa Sa + Sa Sa S d Pa CO 2 Emitter (Power Plant or Industrial Facility) Pipeline Operator Storage Operator Given CO 2 Emissions Investment Costs Capturing Costs Investment Costs Transport Costs Investment Costs Storing Costs Onshore Saline Aquifers Offshore Depleted Gas Fields Purchase CO 2 Certificates

14 Modeling a European CCTS Infrastructure: Scenario Key Assumptions Scenario Geological storage potential CO 2 certificate price in 2050 BAU Off 120 Conservative storage potential Low storage potential GeoCapacity (100 Gt for Europe) GeoCapacity (100 Gt for Europe) GeoCapacity Conservative (50 Gt for Europe) 25 percent of GeoCapacity (25 Gt for Europe) Public acceptance 50 Euro Onshore + offshore 120 Euro Offshore storage only 50 Euro Onshore + offshore 50 Euro Onshore + offshore Source: Own illustration based on input data from EEA (2007) and GeoCapacity (2009a, b)

15 Emission Sources and Sinks in Europe Emission sources are often agglomerated Main storage potential in Northern Europe and North Sea Source: EPRTR, 2011, GeoCapacity, 2009a,b

16 Scenario Modeling a European CCTS Infrastructure: Scenario Results CO 2 price in 2050 [ ] CO 2 stored via CCTS in 2050 [%] Infrastructure length in 2050 [km] Share of CO 2 from industry [%] BAU Off , ,2 Conservative Storage Potential Low Storage Potential Under certain assumptions, CCTS may contribute significantly to the decarbonization of Europe s electricity and industry sector. Results reveal that the development of the CCTS infrastructure is highly sensitive to the availability of storage sites. An early integration of Europe s industry and electricity sectors in the CO 2 infrastructure planning increases network efficiency. In all scenarios, industry plays an important role as a first mover to induce deployment of CCTS

17 Pipeline Deployment by 2050 in Different Scenarios BAU: CCTS infrastructure in 2050 Offshore 120: CCTS infrastructure in

18 Main Messages 1. The potential contribution of CCTS to a decarbonised European electricity sector should be reconsidered given new data available on CCTS costs, a better understanding of the complexity of the process chain and the lowered CO 2 storage potential. 2. The real bottleneck towards CCTS is the transport and storage infrastructure: absent easily accessible onshore storage sites, CCTS may become prohibitively expensive if moved offshore. 3. The focus of CCTS-policies should be shifted from the energy sector to CO 2 -intensive industrial sectors. Due to a larger number of small emissions sources, this will pose higher challenges to network development

19 CO 2 Emissions from Heavy Industry Sources CO 2 Emissions Germany (2007): 841 Mt Transport: 152 Mt Households: 128 Mt Industry: 90,5 Mt Energy: 385 Mt Commerce: 89 Mt Iron & Steel: 52,5 Mt Efficiency Improvements, switch in processes in 2050: 34 Mt Cement: 28,5 Mt Efficiency Improvements in 2050: 17 Mt Pulp & Paper: 1 Mt CO 2 -free alternatives in 2050: 0 Mt 51 Mt H2 & NH3: 8,5 Mt CO 2 -free alternatives in 2050: 0 Mt Source: EPRTR, 2011, Öko-Institut,

20 CCTS in Industrial Applications 1 Cement: responsible for more than 5% of global anthropogenic CO 2 emissions. - Production of 1 ton Portland cement results in tons of carbon. - Alternative production processes under development, but so far no major break through. Iron/Steel: the iron and steel industry accounts for about 19% of final energy use and about a quarter of direct CO 2 emissions from the industry sector. - World average: 1 t Steel = 2,2 t CO 2, best practice 1,8 t CO 2 - Direct iron reduction in combination with CO 2 neutral Hydrogen production Pulp/paper: responsible for ~ 6% of industrial final energy use - Already high share of biomass co-firing ( ~50%) and CHP. Source: UNIDO,

21 CCTS in Industrial Applications 2 Hydrogen: due to much lower costs and technical maturity, H 2 production primarily based on the steam reformation of natural gas. - Electrolysis with renewable based electricity could lower carbon emissions significantly, but expensive and immature. Ammonia: - Dominating industrial application of CC due to Hydrogen production from natural gas reformation - Use of green hydrogen possible, but uneconomical (q.v. hydrogen) Refineries: the use of hydrogen will increase with the use of heavy oils, oils sands and oil shale - Use of green hydrogen possible, but uneconomical (q.v. hydrogen) Source: UNIDO,

22 Conclusions The technical, financial, and institutional structures of the entire chain pose significant challenges. The real bottleneck towards CCTS is the transport and storage infrastructure. The focus should be extended to industrial applications. - Due to a larger number of small emissions sources, this will pose higher challenges to network development. - Technical alternatives to CCTS are available Early planning of transport routes is of paramount importance should large-scale CCTS deployment ever become reality. The potential contribution of CCTS to a decarbonised European electricity sector should be reconsidered

23 References EPRTR (2011): European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register GeoCapacity (2009a): Assessing European Capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide - The EU GeoCapacity Project. Energy Procedia, Volume 1, Issue 1, February 2009, Pages GeoCapacity (2009b): WP2 Report - Storage Capacity. EU GeoCapacity, Assessing European Capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. Gjerset, Marius (2010): CO2 capture and storage experience and projects worldwide Höller, Samuel (2010): Ablagerung von CO2 im geologischen Untergrund: Wie viel Platz gibt es in Deutschland? Bild des Monats. Wuppertal Institut für Klima Umwelt Energie. Ho, T.M., Allison, G.W., Wiley, D.E. (2010): Comparison of MEA capture cost for low CO2 emissions sources in Australia. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. IEA (2005): Building the Cost Curves for CO2 Storage: European Sector. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. IEA (2009): Technology Roadmap Carbon Capture and Storage. OECD, Paris, Metz B. [et al.]: IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage [Buch]. - United Kingdom : Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Tzimas, E. (2009): The cost of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects in Europe. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, European Commission. UNIDO (2010): Global Technology Roadmap for CCS in Industry. Background Paper prepared for the Sectoral Workshops. 30 June 1 July 2010 Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates