• Battelle and its role in defining real world solutions to climate change

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage a Key Element of a Global Carbon Management Portfolio:

Findings from Phase 2 of the

Global Energy Technology Strategy Project

Neeraj Gupta, James J Dooley, Gerald M. Stokes Battelle

July 18, 2006

PNWD-SA-7474

Outline

• Battelle and its role in defining real world solutions to climate change

• The Global Energy Technology Strategy and an Overview of what it means “to address climate change”

• The role of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage technologies in addressing climate change

• Conclusions

Battelle Memorial Institute

The Business of Innovation

•

World’s largest not-for-profit R&D company, established 1928

•

7,500 staff members, >1,400 industrial clients

•

$2.7 billion in R&D annually

•

Principal markets – Energy

– Agrifood

– Environment – Chemicals

– Medical Products Pharmaceuticals – Automotive

– National Security

Battelle’s Major Technology Centers

Corporate Headquarters Columbus, Ohio

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Golden, Colorado

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Richland, Washington

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Long Island, New York Battelle Europe

Geneva, Switzerland

Battelle’s Signature Contributions to Carbon Management

Evaluating Solution Strategies

Understanding of the Problem

Regional Impacts of climate change

Developing &

Deploying Solutions

University Partners University Partners

Sequestration Sequestration Science

Science

Subsurface Science Subsurface Science

Fluid Fluid Dynamics Dynamics

Gas Gas Hydrates Hydrates

Terrestrial Terrestrial Sequestratio Sequestration

COCO₂₂ Capture Capture Computational

Computational Sciences

Sciences

The Global Energy Technology Strategy Project

• Unique, multinational, public/private sector research program launched in 1998 to better understand the role of technology in addressing climate change.

• First GTSP summary report released in 2001 at a special session at COP6 in the Hague which articulated the need for a multi-pronged,

systematic strategy for addressing climate

change that must include four key components:

- Adaptation

- (Global) Technology Development and Deployment

- Emissions Mitigation

- Resolving the Scientific Uncertainty.

Carbon Management Problem Statement Summarized by Article 2 of the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change

• UNFCCC has nearly 200 signatory countries and establishes as its “ultimate objective”:

– …the stabilization of greenhouse gas

concentrations…

– …at a level that would prevent dangerous…interference with the climate system…

– …and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

Concentrations not

Emissions

Don’t

Know What is Dangerous

Economic Development

Matters

Stabilizing Atmospheric Concentrations and not Annual Emissions Levels is the Goal

• Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and not their annual emissions levels should be the

overarching strategic goal of climate policy.

• Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases implies that a fixed and finite amount of CO

₂

can be released to the atmosphere over the course of this century.

– We all share a planetary greenhouse gas emissions budget.

– Every ton of emissions released to the atmosphere reduces the budget left for future generations.

– As we move forward in time and this planetary emissions budget is drawn

down, the remaining allowable emissions will become more valuable.

– Emissions permit prices should steadily rise with time.

Fundamental transformation of the way in which energy is produced and consumed will be required to stabilize

atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

Global Primary Energy 1850-2100 (Exajoules)

Non-biomas renewable Biomass

Nuclear Natural Gas Oil

Coal

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

Global Primary Energy 1850-2100 (Exajoules) . Energy Efficiency and Energy

Intensity Improvements Non-biomass renewable Biomass

Nuclear

Natural Gas + CCS Natural Gas Oil + CCS Oil

Coal + CCS Coal

285 ppm

311 ppm 296 ppm

374 ppm

509 ppm

744 ppm

Today

285 ppm

311 ppm 296 ppm

374 ppm

488 ppm

550 ppm

Today

Reference Case Stabilization at 550 ppm

Fundamental transformation of the way in which energy is produced and consumed will be required to stabilize

atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

Global Primary Energy 1850-2100 (Exajoules)

Non-biomas renewable Biomass

Nuclear Natural Gas Oil

Coal

285 ppm

311 ppm 296 ppm

374 ppm

509 ppm

744 ppm

Today

Reference Case

Fundamental transformation of the way in which energy is produced and consumed will be required to stabilize

atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

Global Primary Energy 1850-2100 (Exajoules) .

Energy Reduction

Non-biomass renewable Biomass

Nuclear

Natural Gas + CCS Natural Gas

Oil + CCS Oil

Coal + CCS Coal

285 ppm

311 ppm 296 ppm

374 ppm

488 ppm

551 ppm

Today

Stabilization at 550 ppm

Carbon Management Challenge

Take Home Points

•

Fundamental changes in the energy system are necessary to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of GHGs.

•

Successful development and deployment of new technologies can significantly reduce the cost of achieving any stabilization target.

•

Key Carbon Management Technologies that have to be ready for deployment by 2020 include:

– Commercial Biomass

– Soil Carbon Sequestration – CO₂ Capture and Storage – Advanced Gasification – Fuel Cells

– Nuclear Energy

– Advanced Renewable Energy Technologies – Advanced Energy Efficient Technologies

•

R&D programs need to be designed to lay the ground work for massive deployment. Near term field demonstrations need to be designed with this in mind.

What is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage?

Figure courtesy of CO2CRC

• What is the potential scale of CCS deployment?

• Is there enough geologic storage capacity?

• What’s the value of CCS deployment?

Global CO ₂ Storage Capacity:

Abundant and Potentially Valuable Natural Resource

• Assuming that society has a broad portfolio of carbon management options at its disposal:

– There appears to be sufficient

global theoretical storage capacity to easily accommodate the demand for CO₂ storage for stabilization

scenarios ranging from 450- 750ppmv.

• Even though there is no definitive answer as to what the total global theoretical capacity is and what fraction is viable:

– CCS still has potentially huge value to society even if only a fraction of current estimates of potential global geologic CO₂ storage capacity is

available. ^$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Trillions of 1990 US $ Discounted to 2005

450 ppm 550 ppm 650 ppm 0

2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

Potential Global Geologic

Storage Capacity

CO2 Storage Needed for

450 ppm Stabilization

CO2 Storage Needed for

550 ppm Stabilization

CO2 Storage Needed for

650 ppm Stabilization

CO2 Storage Needed for

750 ppm Stabilization Gigatons of CO2

Global CO

₂

Storage Capacity

A Very Heterogeneous Natural Resource

Global CO ₂ Storage Capacity

A Very Heterogeneous Natural Resource

•~8100 Large CO₂ Point Sources

• 14.9 GtCO₂/year

•>60% of all global anthropogenic CO₂ emissions

•11,000 GtCO₂of potentially available storage capacity

•U.S., Canada and Australia likely have sufficient CO₂ storage capacity for this century

•Japan and Korea’s ability to continue using fossil fuels likely constrained by

relatively small domestic storage reservoir capacity

How will CCS deploy across the U.S. economy?

How will CCS work within the U.S. electric utility industry?

CCS Deployment Across the US Economy

Large CO

₂

Storage Resource and Large Potential Demand for CO

₂

Storage

•2,730 GtCO₂ in deep saline formations (DSF) with perhaps close to another 900 GtCO₂ in offshore DSFs

•240 Gt CO₂ in on-shore saline filled basalt formations

•35 GtCO₂ in depleted gas fields

•30 GtCO₂ in deep unmineable coal seams with potential for enhanced coalbed methane (ECBM) recovery

•12 GtCO₂ in depleted oil fields with potential for enhanced oil recovery (EOR)

•1,053 electric power plants

•259 natural gas processing facilities

•126 petroleum refineries

•44 iron & steel foundries

•105 cement kilns

• 38 ethylene plants

• 30 hydrogen production

• 19 ammonia refineries

• 34 ethanol production plants

• 7 ethylene oxide plants

1,715 Large Sources (100+ ktCO₂/yr)

with Total Annual Emissions = 2.9 GtCO₂ 3,900+ GtCO₂ Capacity within 230 Candidate Geologic CO₂ Storage Reservoirs

CCS Deployment Across the US Economy

No uniform “CCS” technology. No homogenous market.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Gas Processing Plants Cement Plants Refineries Iron / Steel Facilities Power Plants Pre-Combustion Power Plants Post-Combustion

Cost of Capture ($/tonne) 28-49

20-33

13-53

55-80

55-59

9-10

0 20 40 60 80 100

Gas Processing Plants Cement Plants Refineries Iron / Steel Facilities Power Plants Pre-Combustion Power Plants Post-Combustion

Cost of Capture ($/tonne) 28-49

20-33

13-53

55-80

55-59

9-10

CCS Deployment Across the US Economy

Differentiated CCS Adoption Across Economic Sectors

($20)

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

CO2 Captured and Stored (MtCO2) Net CCS Cost ($/tCO2)

2

10

9

8 6 7

5

4

3

1

The Net Cost of Employing CCS within the United States - Current Sources and Technology

(8) Smaller coal-fired power plant / nearby (<25 miles) deep saline basalt formation (8) Smaller coal-fired power plant / nearby (<25 miles) deep saline basalt formation

(7) Iron & steel plant / nearby (<10 miles) deep saline formation (7) Iron & steel plant / nearby (<10 miles) deep saline formation

(6) Coal-fired power plant / moderately distant (<50 (6) Coal-fired power plant / moderately distant (<50 miles) depleted gas field (5) Large, coal-fired

power plant / nearby (<25 miles) deep saline formation

(5) Large, coal-fired power plant / nearby (<25 miles) deep saline formation

(4) High purity hydrogen production facility / nearby (<25 miles) depleted gas field

(4) High purity hydrogen production facility / nearby (<25 miles) depleted gas field

(3) Large, coal- fired power plant / nearby (<10 miles) ECBM opportunity (3) Large, coal- fired power plant / nearby (<10 miles) ECBM opportunity

(2) High purity natural gas processing facility / moderately distant (~50 miles) EOR opportunity

(2) High purity natural gas processing facility / moderately distant (~50 miles) EOR opportunity

(1) High purity

ammonia plant / nearby (1) High purity

ammonia plant / nearby (<10 miles) EOR

(10) Gas-fired power plant / distant (>50 miles) deep saline formation

(10) Gas-fired power plant / distant (>50 miles) deep saline formation

(9) Cement plant / distant (>50 miles) deep saline formation (9) Cement plant / distant (>50 miles) deep saline formation

($20)

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Example CCS Cost Pair

Cost, $/tCO2

Capture Compression Transport Injection

CCS Deployment by Electric Utilities

IGCC+CCS and Nuclear Are Keys to Decarbonizing Baseload Power

•

In 2005, conventional fossil-fired power plants were the

predominant means of

generating competitively priced electricity.

•

However, given today’s and (likely) tomorrow’s higher natural gas prices and the imposition of a hypothetical

binding greenhouse gas control policy,

– IGCC+CCS and nuclear become -- in some regions of the U.S. -- the dominant means of generating low- carbon baseload electricity.

Dispatch Cost

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

$/MWh

Renewables Nuclear

PC New Gas

CC

Gas CT Gas Steam

PC Gas CC

PC

Min Dispatch 50 pctile 90 pctile

IGCC CCS

2045

D ispatch C ost

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000

M W

$/MWh

Renewables Nuc lear

P C

Gas CT

Gas S team

P C

Gas CC

P C

Min Dis patc h 50 pc tile 90 pc tile

PC

2005

What role will CCS play for nations that do not have

abundant domestic geologic CO

₂

storage reservoirs?

China: Is There Enough CO ₂ Storage Capacity?

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0

1 9 7 5 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 5 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 5 2 0 5 0 2 0 6 5 2 0 8 0 2 0 9 5

Electricity production (exajoules per year)

W in d P h o tv o lta ic s H yd ro p o w e r B io m a s s N u c le a r p o w e r C o a l + C C S (IG C C + C C S ) C o n v e n tio n a l C o a l (P C ) N a tu ra l g a s + C C S N a tu ra l g a s (N G C C ) O il + C C S O il

Unlimited China CCS Very Limited China CCS

0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0

1 9 7 5 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 5 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 5 2 0 5 0 2 0 6 5 2 0 8 0 2 0 9 5

Electricity Production (exajoules per year)

W in d P h o tv o lta ic s H yd ro p o w e r B io m a s s N u c le a r p o w e r N a tu ra l g a s + C C S N a tu ra l g a s (N G C C ) C o a l + C C S (IG C C + C C S ) C o n v e n tio n a l C o a l (P C ) O il + C C S

O il

Annual Emissions 0 - 500 ktCO2/y 500 - 1,000 ktCO2/y 1,000 - 5,000 ktCO2/y 5,000 - 10,000 ktCO2/

>10,000 ktCO2/y

China’s Reliance on Nuclear Power and the Price of Energy Are Tied to How

Much CO

₂

Storage Capacity is Available

• The use of fossil fuels is severely curtailed in carbon-constrained world

• Nuclear power and biomass must be pushed, beyond cost-effective limits to meet energy demand

• High energy prices result

• Fossil fuel use increases while emissions are curtailed

• Balanced, stable electricity generation portfolio is maintained

• Lower energy prices

• $100s of billions to a $1 trillion in

Without Suitable Geologic CO

₂

Storage Formations India’s

Reliance on Nuclear Power

Grows Substantially in Face of CO

₂

Emissions Constraints

India: Is There Enough CO ₂ Storage Capacity?

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Nulear Power's Share of India's Electricity Generation B2_Reference

B2_450_100%

B2_450_50%

B2_450_10%

B2_550_100%

B2_550_50%

B2_550_10%

B2_650_100%

B2_650_50%

B2_650_10%

Reference Case (i.e., no climate policy)

Tight (450) emissions constraint and minimal CO2 storage potential

Composition of Power

Generation in Japan, 2095

Regionally limited CCS available 550 ppm

Biomass

Hydro Nuclear

NGCC with CCS

Oil with CCS Coal

Coal with CCS PV Oil

NGCC

Wind

Regionally unlimited CCS assumed available, 550 ppm

Nuclear

Wind NGCC

Oil

PV Coal with

CCS Coal Oil with

CCS NGCC with

CCS

Biomass Hydro

Japan: Is There Enough CO ₂

Storage Capacity?

CO2CRC, June 2005 APEC Study

• Taiwan: Is There

Enough CO ₂ Storage

Capacity?

Global CO ₂ Storage Capacity:

Take Home Messages

•

Geologic CO₂ storage reservoirs, like many other natural resources, are heterogeneous in quality or distribution.

– Some regions have the potential to use CCS for a very long time and likely with fairly constant and possibly declining costs.

– In other regions, CCS appears to be more of a transition technology.

– Simply knowing whether a given region has more theoretical CO₂ storage capacity or more “value-added” CO₂ storage potential is not a significant predictor of the extent to which CCS technologies will be deployed as a central means of reducing CO₂ emissions.

– On the other hand, a priori knowledge of a lack of or severely constrained CO₂ storage potential in a region likely does suggest fewer options for reducing CO₂ emissions.

•

A near-term high-priority research task is to survey candidate CO₂ storage reservoirs in the U.S. and in other key nations (e.g., China and India) as the

availability of this resource directly impacts the likely evolution of a region’s future energy infrastructure.

The Scope of the Scale-up Challenge

World CCS Projects

Projected Lifetime CO₂Storage

0-10 MtCO₂ 10-20 MtCO₂ 20-30 MtCO₂

250 Million tons CO2 (approximate amount CO2 storage needs of one 1000MW IGCC operating for 50 years

1: Big Sky Partnership* 12: RECOPOL 2: CO2SINK 13: Salt Creek / NPR-3 3: Frio 14: Sleipner 4: Gorgon 15: Snohvit 5: Illinois Basin Partnership* 16: Southeast Partnership*

6: In Salah 17: Southwest Partnership*

7: K12B 18: Surat 8: Midwest Partnership* 19: West Coast Partnership*

9: Minama-Nagaoka 20: Weyburn 10: Otway 21: Yubari 11: Plains Partnership*

*Denotes US DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Bold text denotes existing or completed projects

World CCS Projects

Projected Lifetime CO₂Storage

0-10 MtCO₂ 10-20 MtCO₂ 20-30 MtCO₂

250 Million tons CO2 (approximate amount CO2 storage needs of one 1000MW IGCC operating for 50 years

World CCS Projects

Projected Lifetime CO₂Storage

0-10 MtCO₂ 10-20 MtCO₂ 20-30 MtCO₂

250 Million tons CO2 (approximate amount CO2 storage needs of one 1000MW IGCC operating for 50 years

1: Big Sky Partnership* 12: RECOPOL 2: CO2SINK 13: Salt Creek / NPR-3 3: Frio 14: Sleipner 4: Gorgon 15: Snohvit 5: Illinois Basin Partnership* 16: Southeast Partnership*

6: In Salah 17: Southwest Partnership*

7: K12B 18: Surat 8: Midwest Partnership* 19: West Coast Partnership*

9: Minama-Nagaoka 20: Weyburn 10: Otway 21: Yubari 11: Plains Partnership*

*Denotes US DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Bold text denotes existing or completed projects

1: Big Sky Partnership* 12: RECOPOL 2: CO2SINK 13: Salt Creek / NPR-3 3: Frio 14: Sleipner 4: Gorgon 15: Snohvit 5: Illinois Basin Partnership* 16: Southeast Partnership*

6: In Salah 17: Southwest Partnership*

7: K12B 18: Surat 8: Midwest Partnership* 19: West Coast Partnership*

9: Minama-Nagaoka 20: Weyburn 10: Otway 21: Yubari 11: Plains Partnership*

*Denotes US DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Bold text denotes existing or completed projects

Stabilizing at 550 ppmv Cumulative Global

Carbon Stored Between 2005 and 2050:

33,000 MtCO₂

Stabilizing at 550 ppmv Cumulative U.S.

Carbon Stored Between 2005 and 2050:

8,000 MtCO₂

Global CCS Deployment:

Take Home Messages

•

The overwhelming criteria for siting a CCS-enabled power plant will relate to things like injectivities and total reservoir capacity and not whether there is

“buyer for CO₂”

•

Deep saline formations will be the workhorse for the USA and many other countries.

•

Within the utility sector, CCS is most economically deployed for base load.

•

CCS must be integrated with large coal-fired electricity and H₂ production to make a large contribution to addressing climate change.

•

Multiple large-scale field experiments, in different sinks and from different sources, need to go forward now (FutureGen is just ONE and not enough).

•

It is important to realize that we are in the earliest stages of the deployment of CCS technologies. Much hard work remains to fulfill the potential promise of CCS technologies for addressing climate change.

Global CCS Deployment:

Take Home Messages

• No one has ever attempted to determine what it means to store 100% of a large power plant’s emissions for 50+ years.

– How many injector wells will be needed? How close can they be to each other?

– Can the same injector wells be used for 50+ years?

– What measurement, monitoring and verification (MMV) “technology suites” should be used and does the suite vary with time?

– How long should post injection monitoring last?

– Who will regulate CO

₂

storage on a day-to-day basis? What criteria and metrics will this regulator use?

• Regulatory Issues:

– Who will assume the liability for the stored CO

₂

?

– How will CO

₂

injection wells be permitted (Class I, Class V, New Class)?

– Rights of way for CO transport: How will these be regulated?

GTSP Phase II Capstone Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage

•

CCS technologies have tremendous potential value for society.

•

CCS is, at its core, a climate-change mitigation technology and therefore the large-scale

deployment of CCS is contingent upon the timing and nature of future GHG emission control

policies.

•

The next 5-10 years constitute a critical window in which to amass needed real-world operational experience with CCS systems.

•

The electric power sector is the largest potential market for CCS technologies and its potential use of CCS has its own characteristics that need to be better understood.

•

Much work needs to be done to ensure that the potential large and rapid scale-up in CCS