Tsouris, Costas

English

Engineering Conferences International

Assessment of Strategies Proposed to Reduce CO2 Emissions Costas Tsouris, Doug Aaron,  Kevin Ye, Andrew Chung, and  Kent WilliamsOak Ridge National Laboratory andGeorgia Institute of TechnologyCO2 Summit                                          Vail, Colorado,  June 9, 20102 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of EnergyCCS Depends on a Suite of Technologies• Separation1– Absorption, adsorption, membranes• Transportation– Transportation via pipelines        (the most viable option)• Storage– Storage in aquifers, deep ocean, oil fields, coal seamsStatoil Sleipner facility: stores CO2in an aquifer below the North SeaCO2 is captured (a), transported (b) and stored (c)(b) (c)(a)1Aaron and Tsouris, SS&T, 2005Tsouris et al.,Energy & Fuels, 2007http://gliving.com/co2-sequestration-a-reality-in-north-sea/3 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of EnergyCO2 Ocean Injection at Monterey Bay, CAMonterey Bay, California (2006)RV Western Flyer, MBARI ROV TiburonTsouris et al, Energy & Fuels, 2007Tsouris et al, ES&T, 20044 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of EnergyThe Hydrate Reactor was Developed at ORNL PTTTTH2OCO2Mixing zoneInjectorWaterGasCJHRSPSReactor OutletCO2-hydrate aggregatesTsouris et al., AIChE J., (2007)CO2 Hydrate ReactorWaterLiquid CO2( ) ( ) ( )sll OnHCOOHnCO 2222 ⋅↔+5 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of EnergyThere are Various Options for CO2 Geologic StorageIPCC (2005)1. Depleted Oil and Gas Reservoirs2. CO2‐EOR and CO2‐EGR3. Deep Saline Aquifers4. CO2‐Enhanced Coal Bed Methane6 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of EnergyCO2 Transportation is a Mature Technology6Construction of Green Pipeline, Denbury ResourcesBaton Rouge, LA. May, 2009.~3,500 Miles of CO2 pipelines transport ~30MtCO2 per year for EOR activitiesPHMSA (2003)Bielicki, ORNL, 20097 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of EnergyCO2 Capture is the Biggest Challenge to CCSFlue GasFlue Gas Treatment CO2 SeparationCompressionPipeline TransmissionInjection(for compliance) (for CCS)(dehydration)(right of way)(geothermal interactions) CO2 Capture & Compression• $1.5 billion capital(CO2)Remaininggases8 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of EnergyThe Cost of CO2 Capture Varies with Capture Efficiency01234567890% Capture 70% Capture 50% Capture 30% Capturec/kWhIncreased Cost of ElectricityVariable O&MFixed O&MCapital7542Cents per KwhCiferno, 2008For amine CO2 scrubbingExpect a significant cost for CO2 capture and compression9 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy• Calculated the resources needed for CCS to stabilize CO2emissions• Used this “pool” of money to build, maintain, operate, and decommission alternative energy installations (Virtual CCS)• Based calculations on the Pacala and Socolow (2004) eight-wedge stabilization triangle800 GtCO2 must be avoided over 50 years!Emissions (GtC/yr)Virtual CCS: A New Concept10 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of EnergyModel Input Data for Comparison of CCS with Wind, Nuclear, and Geothermal Power• Data taken from the literature determine the scale of CCS and alternative solutions:• These data lead to a total, one-wedge cost of $5.1 trillion over a period of 50 years• Cost and revenue data for wind and nuclear energy:510.6430($/ton CO2)(GT/year)(GT)Cost of CCS1CO2 emissions increaseCO2 emissions in 2010433($/kW-yr)Nuclear revenue5700($/kW)Wind installed cost39050464382778($/kW-yr)($/kW)($/kW-yr)($/kW)Wind revenueNuclear installed cost2Geothermal revenueGeothermal installed cost1IPCC Report 2Waste disposal cost included11 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of EnergyAdditional Data Used in the Model• Capacity factor affects role of renewable energy:– Capacity factor:• 90% for nuclear - baseload• 90% for geothermal - baseload• 30% for wind - peak– Nuclear and geothermal are easily integrated to the current grid system• Following the scenario of Pacala and Socolow:– Assume CCS lasts from 2010 to 2060 (50 years)– Goal is to stabilize CO2 emissions at 2010 level, thus avoiding all increased emissions12 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy• For a 25-year lifetime, windmills avoid 1.9 times more CO2 than CCS per dollar in overall investment (capital plus operation).• For a 50-year lifetime, nuclear power plants can avoid 4.3 times more CO2 than CCS per dollar in overall investment (capital plus operation).Windmills continue toavoid CO2 emissions for their 25-years of lifetimeWind and Nuclear Power Avoid More Carbon Dioxide Emissions than CCSNuclear plants continue to avoid CO2 emissions for their 50-years of lifetime2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 206025303540455055 BaU 1 Wedge CCS 2 Wedge CCS 3 Wedge CCS 4 Wedge CCS 5 Wedge CCSCO2 Emissions (Gt)YearTsouris et al., ES&T, 201013 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of EnergyAlternative Energy Generates Revenue/yr)2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100-3 x 1011-2 x 1011-1 x 101101 x 10112 x 10113 x 10114 x 1011Constant 2010 DollarsYear CCS cost (one wedge) Windmill revenue Nuclear revenue5 x 1011Tsouris et al., ES&T, 201014 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of EnergyComparison of CCS and Alternative Energy Shows Alternatives are Better Options *1 wedge = 100 GtCO2 avoided over 50 yearsCO2 avoidance and revenue for a $5.1 trillion investment (1 wedge*)Revenue($)Carbon avoidance ratioTechnology27 T4.50Geothermal22 T4.31Nuclear9.1 T1.91Wind–1CCS15 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of EnergyVirtual CCS Can Help Reduce CO2 Emissions More Effectively than CCSTsouris et al., ES&T, 2010 16 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of EnergyWe Can More Effectively Stabilize the CO2Concentration in the Atmosphere by:• Continuing CCS applications that generate revenue (i.e., EOR)• Ranking carbon avoidance strategies based on effectiveness ratio over CCS and economic performance• Pursuing virtual CCS, starting from the most promising energy strategies based on ranking – Investing resources planned for CCS into low-CO2 energy technologies– Investing in both baseload and peak energy technologiesVirtual CCS is a more sustainable approach because it reduces carbon emissions more effectively and economically than CCS.

Assessment of Strategies Proposed to Reduce CO2 Emissions

https://dc.engconfintl.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&amp;context=co2_summit

Assessment of Strategies Proposed to Reduce CO2 Emissions

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Engineering Conferences International