Evaluation of fossil power plants with CCS: Methodology ...

Wir schaffen Wissen – heute für morgenWir schaffen Wissen – heute für morgen

Evaluation of fossil power plants with CCS: Evaluation of fossil power plants with CCS: Methodology & Results

Paul Scherrer Institut, Laboratory for Energy Systems AnalysisChristian Bauer

, y gy y y

2nd ICEPE 2011, Frankfurt, June 20-22, 2011

G h G i i d li t hGreenhouse Gas emissions and climate change+ 2°C+ 2 C

- 50% until 2050

2007

- 80% until 2100

2nd ICEPE, Frankfurt, 21 June 2011 Laboratory for Energy Systems Analysis, Technology Assessment

sour

ce: E

C,

2010

Key drivers for global CO2 emissions

CO2 emissions = carbon content of the x energy intensity x production x global energy supply of the economy per person populationenergy supply of the economy per person population

50% increaseNeeds to be reduced by a factor of 3 for reaching the goal

GOAL (global):50% reduction

by 2050

(IPCC 2000)

I b f t f 2 15

Reduction by a factor of 6.5 required

by 2050 Increase by a factor of 2.15(1.6% growth per year)

Reduction by a factor of 1.6( 1% )

Needs to be reduced bya factor of 4 for reaching

the goal

(-1% per year)

U t d f ll CO f “


Urgent need for all „CO2 free“technologies incl. CCS

Global power generation: scenarios until 210080

Baseline Hydro power

LWR

Wind

50

60

70

nd TWh

Hydro powerWindNuclear

Clean Coal

Hydro

10

20

30

40

Thou

san Nuclear

CoalNatural gas

80450 ppm

Remaining fossil NGCC0

10

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Natural gasFossil (Rest)

9LWR

BiomassWind Solar PV

Hydro50

60

70

d TW

h

450 ppmPhotovoltaicsBiomass

SI, T

urton

et al

. 200

9

Clean Coal‐CCS

20

30

40

Thou

sand Coal with CCS

Natural gas with CCS


sour

ce: P

S

Remaining fossilNGCC NGCC‐CCS

0

10

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Global CO2 emissions until 2050

ECD/

IEA

2010


sour

ce: O

E

CCS technologies

Post combustion Electricitygeneration

CO2Separation

N2, O2CoalGas

Airg p

CO2

CoalAir/O2,Steam CO2

Pre combustion CO2 Compression,

Coal

Gasification

Steam

Reformer& CO2 sep.

Electricitygeneration

H2 N2, O2

2

Pre combustionGas

2 pTransport &Storage (T&S)

& CO2 sep. generation

Air

CO

Oxyfuel combustionCoalGas

Electricitygeneration

O2

CO2


Air Air SeparationO2 N2

source: after IPCC 2005

CCS projects worldwide (current status)Coal-fired power plants

Natural gas-fired power plants

Future projects

Non-power plant CCS projects

CCS projects worldwide (current status)p p p p j

Large scale CCS

Pilot CCS projects

Large scale CCS

Pilot CCS projects

Announced NGLNG

H2 Other industry

Natural sources

CCS projects

projects CCS projects

projects

Europe Post: 6O 2

Post: 3 O 2

Post: 1O 0

Post: 1 O 0

25 3 1 1 0Oxy: 2Pre: 3

Oxy: 2Pre: 1

Oxy: 0Pre: 1

Oxy: 0Pre: 0

North America Post: 7 Post: 5 Post: 0 Post: 0 2 6 4 3 1Oxy: 1Pre: 6

Oxy: 1Pre: 0

Oxy: 0Pre: 0

Oxy: 0Pre: 0

Australia Post: 0 Post: 0 Post: 0 Post: 0 3 1 0 0 1Oxy: 0Pre: 0

Oxy: 1Pre: 0

Oxy: 0Pre: 0

Oxy: 0Pre: 0

3

Rest of the world Post: 0 Post: 1 Post: 0 Post: 0 1 1 0 1 0


Rest of the world Post: 0Oxy: 0Pre: 2

Post: 1 Oxy: 0Pre: 0

Post: 0Oxy: 0Pre: 1

Post: 0 Oxy: 0Pre: 0

1 1 0 1 0

Source: MIT 2011 (http://sequestration.mit.edu)

CCS @ coal vs natural gas plants: state of the artCCS @ coal vs. natural gas plants: state-of-the-art

CCS Carbon Dioxide Capture and StorageIGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle


IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined CycleCLC Chemical Looping CombustionN/A not available Source: Teir et al. 2010

Sustainability assessment

How to integrate environmental,How to integrate environmental,economic & social aspects?

→ MCDA (“Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis”)→ MCDA ( Multi Criteria Decision Analysis )goal: sustainability index / technology ranking for power generation


S l ti f t h l i

MCDA process: subjective & objective elementsSelection of technologies

Selection of indicators for technology assessment*Selection of indicators for technology assessment

Quantification of indicators for each technology

Normalisation of indicators * supported/carried out by( b b d) “

Weighting of indicators*(web-based) „surveys“

Aggregation: Combination of indicator values & weighting factors

C l l ti f th t i bilit i d


Calculation of the sustainability index= ranking of technologies

Indicators for measuring sustainability (examples)

economy: costs, security of supplygeneration costsexternal costs (health impacts)external costs (health impacts)jobs

environmentenvironment: resources, emissions, climate change

greenhouse gas emissionsconsumption of resources society economy

society:

pimpacts on ecosystems

acceptance fairness

society economy

society: acceptance, fairnesswastesfatalities due to pollutants and accidentsl d li


landscape quality

Set of Sustainability Criteria (1/3): Economy


Source: PSI,Hirschberg et al., 2008

Criteria / Indicator Description Unit

ECONOMY Economy related criteria

CUSTOMERS Economic effects on customers

Generation cost This criterion gives the average generation cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh). It includes the capital cost of the plant, (fuel), and operation and maintenance costs. It is not the end price.

€/MWh

SOCIETY Economic effects on societySOCIETY Economic effects on society

Direct jobs This criterion gives the amount of employment directly related to building and operating the generating technology, including the direct labour involved in extracting or harvesting and transporting fuels (when applicable). Indirect labour is not included. Measured in terms of person-years/GWh.

Person-years/GWh

F l t El t i it t t b l bl t i t ti i i if i t d f l il bl d t i liti l O di lFuel autonomy Electricity output may be vulnerable to interruptions in service if imported fuels are unavailable due to economic or political problems related to energy resource availability. This measure of vulnerability is based on expert.

Ordinal

UTILITY Economic effects on utility company

Financial Financial impacts on utility

Financing risk Utility companies can face a considerable financial risk if the total cost of a new electricity generating plant is very large compared to the size of the company. It may be necessary to form partnerships with other utilities or raise capital through financial markets.

€

Fuel sensitivity The fraction of fuel cost to overall generation cost can range from zero (solar PV) to low (nuclear power) to high (gas turbines). This fraction therefore indicates how sensitive the generation costs would be to a change in fuel prices

Factorfraction therefore indicates how sensitive the generation costs would be to a change in fuel prices.

Construction time Once a utility has started building a plant it is vulnerable to public opposition, resulting in delays and other problems. This indicator therefore gives the expected plant construction time in years. Planning and approval time is not included.

Years

Operation Factors related to a utility company's operation of a technology.

Marginal cost Generating companies “dispatch” or order their plants into operation according to their variable cost, starting with the lowest cost base-load plants up to the highest cost plants at peak load periods. This variable (or dispatch) cost is the cost to run the plant.

€cents/kWh

Flexibility Utilities need forecasts of generation they cannot control (renewable resources like wind and solar), and the necessary start-up and shut-down times required for the plants they can control. This indicator combines these two measures of planning flexibility, based

t j d t

Ordinal


on expert judgment.

Availability All technologies can have plant outages or partial outages (less than full generation), due to either equipment failures (forcedoutages) or due to maintenance (unforced or planned outages). This indicator tells the fraction of the time that the generating plant is available to generate power.

Factor

Set of Sustainability Criteria (2/3): Environment



Criteria / Indicator Description UnitENVIRONMENT Environment related criteria.

RESOURCES Resource use (non-renewable)

Energy Energy resource use in whole life-cycle

Fossil fuels This criterion measures the total primary energy in the fossil resources used for the production of 1 kWh of electricity. It includes the total coal, natural gas and crude oil used for each complete electricity generation technology chain.

MJ/kWh

Uranium This criterion quantifies the primary energy from uranium resources used to produce 1 kWh of electricity. It includes the total use MJ/kWhUranium q p y gy p yof uranium for each complete electricity generation technology chain.

Minerals Mineral resource use in whole life-cycle

Metal ore This criterion quantifies the use of selected scarce metals used to produce 1 kWh of electricity. The use of all single metals is expressed in antimony-equivalents, based on the scarcity of their ores relative to antimony.

kg(Sb-eq.)/kWh

CLIMATE Potential impacts on the climate

CO2 emissions This criterion includes the total for all greenhouse gases expressed in kg of CO2 equivalent. kg(CO2-eq.)/kWh

ECOSYSTEMS Potential impacts to ecosystems

N l ti Ecosystem impacts from normal operationNormal operation Ecosystem impacts from normal operation

Biodiversity This criterion quantifies the loss of species (flora & fauna) due to the land used to produce 1 kWh of electricity. The "potentially damaged fraction" (PDF) of species is multiplied by land area and years.

PDF*m2*a/kWh

Ecotoxicity This criterion quantifies the loss of species (flora & fauna) due to ecotoxic substances released to air, water and soil to produce 1 kWh of electricity. The "potentially damaged fraction" (PDF) of species is multiplied by land area and years.

PDF*m2*a/kWh1 kWh of electricity. The potentially damaged fraction (PDF) of species is multiplied by land area and years.

Air pollution This criterion quantifies the loss of species (flora & fauna) due to acidification and eutrophication caused from production of 1 kWh of electricity. The "potentially damaged fraction" (PDF) of species is multiplied by land area and years.

PDF*m2*a/kWh

Severe accidents Ecosystem impacts in the event of severe accidents

Hydrocarbons This criterion quantifies large accidental spills of hydrocarbons (at least 10000 tonnes) which can potentially damage t/kWhHydrocarbons q g p y ( ) p y gecosystems.

t/kWh

Land contamination This criterion quantifies land contaminated due to accidents releasing radioactive isotopes. The land area contaminated is estimated using Probabilistic Safety Analysis (PSA). Note: only for nuclear electricity generation technology chain.

km2/kWh

WASTE Potential impacts due to waste


Chemical waste This criterion quantifies the total mass of special chemical wastes stored in underground repositories due to the production of 1 kWh of electricity. It does not reflect the confinement time required for each repository.

kg/kWh

Radioactive waste This criterion quantifies the volume of medium and high level radioactive wastes stored in underground repositories due to the production of 1 kWh of electricity. It does not reflect the confinement time required for the repository.

m3/kWh

Set of Sustainability Criteria (3/3): Social



Set of Sustainability Criteria (3/3): Social

example



Set of Sustainability Criteria: Social 3rd levelPS

I,rg

et al

., 200

8


Sour

ce: P

Hirsc

hber

New plants

Economy: power generation cost vs. CO2 emissions (today) / M

Wh] New plants

with CCS

sts [

US$

ratio

n co

wer g

ener

New coal and nat. gas power plants w/o CCS

Pow


CO2 emissions [kg / MWh]source: IPCC 2005

P ti t ith d / CCSPower generation costs with and w/o CCS


Capital cost Fixed O&M Variable O&M Compression, pipeline, storage O&M Fuel costsource: Volkart 2011

S iti it l i f ti tSensitivity analysis for power generation costs

2nd ICEPE, Frankfurt, 21 June 2011 Laboratory for Energy Systems Analysis, Technology Assessmentsource: Volkart 2011

Environment: based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)Environment: based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)Boundary of the

h iStored CO2energy chain

Boundary ofthe LCA

Carbon Capture & Storage

CO2 transport

CO2 injectionDepth drillingthe LCA

CO2 separationdirect

Natural gas production Nat. gas transport Power plant,

operationelectricity[1 kWh]

Fuels Electricity Materials forinfrastrucutre

TransportsConsumptionbackground data“

Environmentalburdensi di


infrastrucutre„background data burdens(emissions etc.)indirect

GHG emissions fossil power generationGHG emissions – fossil power generation

9„CCS max“: post comb.; 400km CO2 transport; 2500m storage depth

PSI

, NEE

DS, 2

009

„CCS min“: oxyfuel comb.; 200km CO2 transport; 800m storage depthp 2 p g p


Sour

ce:

30-210

LCA results: Greenhouse gas emissionsLCA results: Greenhouse gas emissions 912

1000

.)/kW

h year 2005year 2030

912

634

753

700

800

900

CO2-e

q.

426

634

455

548540

388400

500

600

700

g (C

123

388

200

300

400

30-2

10

clear

many

sCCCHPSOFCf riv

ererv

oirCHPCHPe

CHman

ymarkmc-S

iV

a-Si

ermal

6 4 3 3 4 477

27246162

3010 1010 1417 1695

370

100

n.a.

CCS:

3

Nuc

Hard C

oal, G

ermNatu

ral ga

s, Natu

ral ga

s, C

Natural

gas,

SOHyd

ro, ru

n-of-r

Hydro,

rese

rBiog

as, C

SNG, C

Wind, o

nsho

re,

nd, o

nsh.,

Germ

nd, o

ffsh.,

Den

mPV, m

cPV, a

Geothe

r


Ha N WWind Wind

Bauer at al. 2008

LCA results: GHG emissions hard coalLCA results: GHG emissions, hard coal

post-combustionCCS max: 400 km / 2500 m

oxyfuel combustionCCS min: 200 km / 800 m

w/o CCS

CCS CO2 transport & storage

pp infrastructure

w/o CCS

eq / k

Wh

with

C pp infrastructurepp operationcoal supply

minus 63%- 74% 9

kg C

O 2-e

- 81% - 87%

PSI

, NEE

DS, 2

009


Sour

ce:

Electricity hard coal*: GHG emissions vs fuel consumption1.6

Treibhausgas-EmissionenGreenhouse gas emissions

Electricity, hard coal*: GHG emissions vs. fuel consumption

1.2

1.4

gBrennstoffverbrauch

+39%

+28%

gFuel consumption

0 8

1

e S

kala

+28%+23%

e sca

le

0.6

0.8

rela

tive

-72%-74% -75%

relat

ive

0.2

0.4-75%

0

ohne CCS mit CCS ohne CCS mit CCS ohne CCS mit CCSw/o CCS w/o CCS w/o CCSwith CCS with CCS with CCS


2010 2025 2050

Source: PSI, NEEDS, 2009 * RO scenario; post combustion capture

LCIA results lignite: aggregated environmental burdens LCIA results, lignite: aggregated environmental burdens


Source: Volkart, 2011

External costs year 2050 ( li ti ti i ti i )6

Wh] climate change - damage costs high

External costs, year 2050 (realistic-optimistic scenario)

4

5

t 200

5 / k

W climate change - damage costs lowland usematerial damagecrop yield losses

3

4

sts

[€ce

nt

p ybiodiversityhealth impacts

1

2

tern

al c

os

0ext

CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS

Hard coal Lignite Nat. gas

PC w/o

CCSxy

fuel c

omb C

CSC

post

comb C

CSPC w

/o CCS

xyfue

l com

b CCS

Cpo

st co

mb CCS

CC w/o

CCSC

post

comb C

CS


Source: NEEDS, 2009

PC oxy

PC p

PC oxy

PC p

CC p

S l ti f t h l i

MCDA process: subjective & objective elementsSelection of technologies

Selection of indicators for technology assessment*Selection of indicators for technology assessment

Quantification of indicators for each technology

Normailisation of indicators * supported/carried out by( b b d) “

Weighting of indicators*(web-based) „surveys“

Aggregation: Combination of indicator values & weighting factors

C l l ti f th t i bilit i d


Calculation of the sustainability index= ranking of technologies


Distribution of indicator weights

SI, t al.,

2009


Sour

ce: P

SSc

henle

r et

Weighting of MCDA indicators

ENVIRONMENTSOCIAL

Weighting of MCDA indicators2nd level

Social & individual risks7%

Local effects on residential areas

ENVIRONMENT49%

ASPECTS24%

Political stability & legitimacy

5%

7% 5%Resources

11%

ECONOMY

Security of power supply

7%

5%

Climate change18%

ECONOMY27%

1 t l lEffects on the utility/operator

8% Ecosystem quality

7%1st level%

Effects on the national economy

7%Waste

8%

Ecosystem quality11%

al., 2

009


7% Electricity production costs13%

8%

Sour

ce: P

SI,

Sche

nler e

t a

Distribution of stakeholder weightsDistribution of stakeholder weights159 respondents, mainly researchp y→ result is NOT representative for the

public opinionp p

al., 2

009


Environment Economy SocietySour

ce: P

SI,

Sche

nler e

t a

MCDA Results: Total Costs vs. MCDA rankingali

ties Nuclear Fossil Renewable

Worst18 18

GHG Hi h

sts +

exte

rna

nkin

g

kWh]

12

14

16

12

14

16GHG em. HighGHG em. LowPollutionLand useG i

erat

ion

cos

e MCD

A Ra

[€ce

nts /

k

8

10

8

10Generation cost

cost

s = g

ene

Aver

age

2

4

6

2

4

6

Tota

l c Best0

EPR

t Rea

ctor

Coal

(PC)

omb.

CCS

yfue

l CCS

sifica

tion

on &

CCS

ycle

(CC)

omb.

CCS

mb.

<1M

W

ell <

1MW

ell <

1MW

plar

9MW

raw

9MW

small

sc.

wer p

lant

re 24

MW

0

2009

EU F

ast

Pulve

rised

C

PC &

Pos

t co

PC &

Oxy

Inte

grat

ed G

as

Int.

Gasif

icatio

Com

bine

d Cy

CC &

Pos

t co

Inte

rnal

Com

MC F

uel c

e

MC F

uel c

e

SRC

Pop

Was

te st

r

PV, T

hin-

film

,

Ther

mal

pow

Offs

hor

GEN GEN

SI, S

chen

ler et

al., 2

et of

techn

ologie

s)


III IV

COALNATURAL

GASNAT. GAS

CHPBIOMASS

CHP SOLAR WIND Sour

ce: P

S(re

duce

d se

NUCLEAR

Conclusions• Any option for GHG reduction needs to be evaluated concerning

Conclusions

sustainability before large-scale implementation considering environmental, economic & social aspects

• CCS in fossil power generation significantly reduces GHG emissions• BUT: high energy demand for CO2 capture & storage→ additional CO2 emissions from the energy chain→ additional fossil fuel demand and associated environmental burdens→ additional fossil fuel demand and associated environmental burdens

• Significant increase in costs of fossil power generation with CCSN th l CCS t b i t t t i tf li f GHG • Nevertheless: CCS must be an important part in a portfolio of GHG reduction measures; for both coal & natural gasCCS h ld b id d b id i t h l “ t d


• CCS should be considered as „bridging technology“ towards a sustainable energy supply worldwide

Thank you for your attention!

Contact:

[email protected]

http://gabe.web.psi.ch/http://www carma ethz ch/


http://www.carma.ethz.ch/

Zusätzlicher Kraftwerksbedarf weltweit bis 2050

CD/IE

A 20

10


Quell

e: OE

Current Current assumptions in LCA modeling of CO2capturep


Source: NEEDS, 2009

LCA perspective: CO captured vs CO avoidedLCA perspective: CO2 captured vs. CO2 avoided

Without CCSCO avoidedCO2 avoided

CO2 captured

With CCS

CO2 emitted


infrastructure fuel & other supplies CO2 emitted CO2 captured

CO capture technologiesCO2 capture technologies


Source: Viebahn et al. 2008

Post combustion capture (Natural gas)Post-combustion capture (Natural gas)


Source: Rubin et al. 2007

Oxy fuel combustion (Natural gas)Oxy-fuel combustion (Natural gas)


Source: IPCC 2005 (p. 126)

Pre combustion capturePre-combustion capture


Date post:	26-Mar-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Evaluation of fossil power plants with CCS: Methodology ...

Documents