An Optimised Investment Model of the Economics of Integrated Returns from CCS Deployment in the UK/UKCS

Publisher PD

An optimised illustrative investment model of the economics of integrated returns from CCS deployment in the UK/UKCS

Preprin

EOR as sequestration: Geoscience perspective

CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) has a development and operational history several decades longer than geologic sequestration of CO2 designed to benefit the atmosphere and provides much of the experience on which confidence in the newer technology is based. With modest increases in surveillance and accounting, future CO2 EOR using anthropogenic CO2 (CO2-A) captured to decrease atmospheric emissions can be used as part of a sequestration program.Bureau of Economic Geolog

Design of Optimal Storage and Recovery Strategies of Carbon Dioxide using the Wytch Farm Reservoir Model

Imperial Users onl

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF LARGE-SCALE CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION DEPLOYMENT OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM BOUNDARIES - OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

Most power generation in the United States is derived from the combustion of fossil fuels, primarily coal and natural gas. As a result, greenhouse gases (GHGs) are generated, and they act to trap radiant heat from the Earth. When GHGs are discussed, attention is usually concentrated on carbon dioxide (CO2) because it is believed to be the most manageable anthropogenic GHG. Therefore, introducing new technologies, primarily those which deal with CO2 capture and storage, is seen as a potential option for managing GHGs. Oil and gas reservoirs, saline formations, and un-mineable coal beds are examples of underground CO2 storage sites. In the United States, it has been estimated that these sites together have the potential capacity to store the country’s CO2 emissions for the next 500 years. For this reason, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) has become a very attractive approach by several industries, including the coal-fired power industry, to reduce their GHG emissions. However, the implementation of CCS on a broad scale will require an enormous input of resources and energy, which will be used during the CCS production, installation, and operation phases. The eventual result of this implementation will be an increased demand for fuel, which in turn will lead to furthe

Assessing the Economic Feasibility of Capturing and Utilizing Carbon Dioxide from Ethanol Production in South Dakota

Since the Industrial Revolution, anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have spiked dramatically, prompting discussions on climate change. Mitigating climate change requires significant reductions in global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as CO2 is the most abundant anthropogenic GHG. A process that assists in offsetting the exponential growth in CO2 emissions is carbon capture and storage (CCS). Integrating carbon capture technology into the ethanol industry can provide an economically feasible way to achieve net reductions in CO2 emissions. The proposed work investigates the economic viability of applying CCS technologies to the 16 ethanol facilities in South Dakota (SD) and quantifies the potential reduction in CO2 emissions for the state. A pipeline network is developed within the state, transporting the congregated CO2 to the oil fields in Harding County, SD. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is examined as a storage option as this method provides additional revenue to the CCS operation and creates a more economically feasible option. Sensitivity analyses are performed to evaluate the impact of variations in performance parameters on the system. Results from this study show a positive net present value (NPV) for each CO2-EOR scenario; hence, a CCS operation in SD can be economically viable when combined with the ethanol industry, and the financial benefits from EOR and tax credits are considered. Sensitivity studies show NPV is highly sensitive to oil price and oil recovery rates. Additionally, the modeled CCS system can geologically store 50.44 million MtCO2 in the Harding County oil fields. Thus, over the simulated storage period, 50.44 million MtCO2 are put to beneficial use and prevented from entering the atmosphere

State Sequestration: Federal Policy Accelerates Carbon Storage, But Leaves Full Climate, Equity Protections to States

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the UN’s expert science panel—has found that limiting climate change to prevent catastrophic harms will require at least some use of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) unless the world rapidly shifts away from fossil fuels and reduces energy demand. There is significant uncertainty, however, about the level of lifecycle GHG reductions achievable in practice from varying CCS applications; some applications could even lead to net increases in emissions. In addition, a number of these applications create or maintain other harms, especially those related to fossil fuel extraction and use. For these reasons, many environmental justice advocates have strongly opposed the deployment of CCS applications. The recently-enacted Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) supercharges incentives for CCS, providing tax credits that bring CCS application near estimated costs of deployment. But neither the IRA nor other federal laws create a comprehensive framework to regulate CCS. Against this backdrop, U.S. states implementing climate policies will likely play a key role in determining whether and in what circumstances CCS is deployed in the U.S. This Article describes these state-federal dynamics and concludes by identifying climate and equity issues that “leadership’ states should consider and potential legal tools that can be used to address those considerations

Carbon Capture and Storage

Emissions of carbon dioxide, the most important long-lived anthropogenic greenhouse gas, can be reduced by Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). CCS involves the integration of four elements: CO 2 capture, compression of the CO2 from a gas to a liquid or a denser gas, transportation of pressurized CO 2 from the point of capture to the storage location, and isolation from the atmosphere by storage in deep underground rock formations. Considering full life-cycle emissions, CCS technology can reduce 65–85% of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion from stationary sources, although greater reductions may be possible if low emission technologies are applied to activities beyond the plant boundary, such as fuel transportation. CCS is applicable to many stationary CO2 sources, including the power generation, refining, building materials, and the industrial sector. The recent emphasis on the use of CCS primarily to reduce emissions from coal-fired electricity production is too narrow a vision for CCS. Interest in CCS is growing rapidly around the world. Over the past decade there has been a remarkable increase in interest and investment in CCS. Whereas a decade ago, there was only one operating CCS project and little industry or government investment in R&D, and no financial incentives to promote CCS. In 2010, numerous projects of various sizes are active, including at least five large-scale full CCS projects. In 2015, it is expected that 15 large-scale, full-chain CCS projects will be running. Governments and industry have committed over USD 26 billion for R&D, scale-up and deployment. The technology for CCS is available today, but significant improvements are needed to support widespread deployment. Technology advances are needed primarily to reduce the cost of capture and increase confidence in storage security. Demonstration projects are needed to address issues of process integration between CO2 capture and product generation, for instance in power, cement and steel production, obtain cost and performance data, and for industry where capture is more mature to gain needed operational experience. Large-scale storage projects in saline aquifers are needed to address issues of site characterization and site selection, capacity assessment, risk management and monitoring. Successful experiences from five ongoing projects demonstrate that, at least on this limited scale, CCS can be safe and effective for reducing emissions. Five commercial-scale CCS projects are operational today with over 35 million tonnes of CO2 captured and stored since 1996. Observations from commercial storage projects, commercial enhanced oil recovery projects, engineered and natural analogues as well as theoretical considerations, models, and laboratory experiments suggest that appropriately selected and managed geological storage reservoirs are very likely to retain nearly all the injected CO2 for very long times, more than long enough to provide benefits for the intended purpose of CCS. Significant scale-up compared to existing CCS activities will be needed to achieve large reductions in CO2 emissions. A 5- to 10-fold scale-up in the size of individual projects is needed to capture and store emissions from a typical coal-fired power plant (500 to 1000 MW). A thousand fold scale-up in size of today’s CCS enterprise would be needed to reduce emissions by billions of tonnes per year (Gt/yr). The technical potential of CCS on a global level is promising, but on a regional level is differentiated. The primary technical limitation for CCS is storage capacity. Much more work needs to be done to realistically assess storage capacity on a worldwide, regional basis and sub-regional basis. Worldwide storage capacity estimation is improving but more experience is needed. Estimates for oil and gas reservoirs are about 1000 GtCO2, saline aquifers are estimated to have a capacity ranging from about 4000 to 23,000 GtCO2. However, there is still considerable debate about how much storage capacity actually exists, particularly in saline aquifers. Research, geological assessments and, most importantly, commercial-scale demonstration projects will be needed to improve confidence in capacity estimates. Costs and energy requirements for capture are high. Estimated costs for CCS vary widely, depending on the application (e.g. gas clean-up vs. electricity generation), the type of fuel, capture technology, and assumptions about the baseline technology. For example, with today’s technology, CCS would increase cost of generating electricity by 50–100%. In this case, capital costs and parasitic energy requirements of 15–30% are the major cost drivers. Research is underway to lower costs and energy requirements. Early demonstration projects are likely to cost more. The combination of high cost and low or absent incentives for large-scale deployment are a major factor limiting the widespread use of CCS. Due to high costs, CCS will not take place without strong incentives to limit CO2 emissions. Certainty about the policy and regulatory regimes will be crucial for obtaining access to capital to build these multi-billion dollar projects. Environmental risks of CCS appear manageable, but regulations are needed. Regulation needs to ensure due diligence over the lifecycle of the project, but should, most importantly, also govern site selection, operating guidelines, monitoring and closure of a storage facility. Experience so far has shown that local resistance to CO2 storage projects may appear and can lead to cancellation of planned CCS projects. Inhabitants of the areas around geological storage sites often have concerns about the safety and effectiveness of CCS. More CCS projects are needed to establish a convincing safety record. Early engagement of communities in project design and site selection as well as credible communication can help ease resistance. Environmental organisations sometimes see CCS as a distraction from a sustainable energy future. Social, economic, policy and political factors may limit deployment of CCS if not adequately addressed. Critical issues include ownership of underground pore space (primarily an issue in the US); long-term liability and stewardship; GHG accounting approaches and ve rification; and regulatory oversight regimes. Governments and the private sector are making significant progress on all of these issues. Government support to lower barriers for early deployments is needed to encourage private sector adoption. Developing countries will need support for technology access, lowering the cost of CCS, developing workforce capacity and training regulators for permitting, monitoring and oversight. CCS combined with biomass can lead to negative emissions . Such technologies are likely to be needed to achieve atmospheric stabilization of CO2 and may provide an additional incentive for CCS adoption

Can geological carbon storage be competitive?

In this paper we review the literature on the costs and benefits of geological carbon storage and the estimates of greenhouse gas permit prices under the Kyoto Protocol commitment period and beyond. Combining these results for a set of circumstances, we find that in the near-term Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is likely to be an economically viable option only in a small set of circumstances, particularly enhanced oil recovery. In the medium and longer term, with improvements in CCS technology and the likelihood of increased greenhouse gas permit prices, CCS is likely to become an economically viable option under a wider range of circumstances