by: theresa pugh director, environmental services american public power association presented to:
Post on 14-Jan-2016
39 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
CO2 Sequestration for Power Plants: Facing Sober Realities of Cost, Location, Liability and
PermittingBy:
Theresa PughDirector, Environmental Services
American Public Power Association
Presented to:Platts’ Carbon Capture & Sequestration Conference
Houston, TexasJune 26, 2008
2
What is APPA?• 2,000 Municipal, State Utilities Which Are
Community Owned• Of 1,400 Utility Members; 1,011 are Water
Utility Owner/Operator• Payment In Lieu Of Taxes Returned To
General City Revenue For Fire, Police, Library, Schools
• Money Must Be Spent Wisely: Low Risk Tolerance For Failure
• Results Must Satisfy Mayors, City Council And Utility General Managers
• Electric Rates Must Be Just and Reasonable
3
Why New Generation and CCS Matters to APPA:
• Population increase predicted 2010-2030• Need to keep up with generation needs to serve our
population and communities• Energy efficiency is an excellent start but won’t get us
there given population and increasing needs• What to keep in context:
• Total current CO2 injected at EOR sites = only 13 (coal) power plants of 500 MW each• EIA projects utility sector to emit 3 trillion tons/year
• Current UIC Chemical Injection Program = 34 million liters or 40 million metric tons or about 1/500th of a percent of the CO2 that some expect to be injected from future power plants
4
New Generation is Driven by Population
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Interim State Population Projections, 2005
6
APPA: Perspective on CO2 Control
• APPA Supports Voluntary CO2-Mitigating Steps
• Signatory on the President’s Climate Vision Memorandum of Understanding to Reduce– GHG emissions intensity by 18% by 2018– Power sector GHG by 3-5% below ’02-’03 baseline
• APPA Tree PowerTM Program for aforestation– Provide shade, improve photosynthesis, reduce CO2
– Golden Tree Award: one tree per customer served
• APPA supports demonstration projects on CCS
8
Source: United States Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000.
9
Source: United States Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995
10
Water Demand with and without CCS: Water Use Increases 33-100%
Source: Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants (DOE/NETL-2007/1281)
11
Aquifers of the United States
Source: USGS, National Atlas of the United States
13
Municipal / Public Power
Convergence of Issues on Geologic Sequestration and Public Power Utilities
• Just and Reasonable Cost of Electricity• Reliability• Located at or near the Local Government
14
Proximity to Infrastructure
Municipal / Public Power
Convergence of Issues on Geologic Sequestration and Public Power Utilities
15
Proximity to Infrastructure
• Transmission Lines• Rail Lines for Delivery• Access to Water
Resource for Generation• Must Meet Load Growth
• Need Access to CO2 Pipeline
Proximity to Infrastructure
16
Proximity to Infrastructure
Municipal / Public Power
Convergence of Issues on Geologic Sequestration and Public Power Utilities
Financial Issues
17
Financial Issues
• CCS Increases Cost of Generation & Cost to Consumer
• CCS Preparation for Permitting will be more Expensive
• Financial Performance Bonds or Surety (is this Private Insurance, Bonds, or Other Method)
• CO2 Disposal Fees Under State UIC Programs
• Title V Operating Permit Fees• Compensation to Oil/Gas/Private
Water for Contamination or Damage to Hydrocarbon Recovery or Future Water Use
• Additional Electricity use for Water Utility:
– Additional Water use– Pump and Treat if Groundwater is
contaminated by salinity, arsenic, etc.
Financial Issues
18
Other Costs – Some Impossible to Calculate
• Cost to separate CO2 at new CCS power plants• Cost to transport CO2 offsite to other states• How much does it cost to pay for retrofit of
natural gas pipeline system for CO2 with booster compressors? Who pays?
• What is the environmental liability or remediation cost to a power plant that might trigger liability under CERCLA, RCRA, ESA, NRDA, and SDWA?– pH changes? Water quality issues?– Impacts to future water use—western water law?– Plant losses or endangered plant species
Financial Issues
19
New Commercial/Business
Risks and Costs to Power Plants
• Is the power industry prepared to compensate oil and gas companies for lost hydrocarbon value for future EOR? What can this cost at $100 bbl? $8 Mcf? And what are those costs in 30 – 50 years?
• What constitutes “performance bond” for utility sector for non-EOR sites? Required by SDWA
• How much is post closure monitoring? How long?
Financial Issues
20
New Coal Generation + CCS = Parasitic Load
• Do you really know the cost?
• Existing coal plants emit approximately 27% of U.S. GHGs (EPA 2007)
• For new plants, cost estimates on CCS do not consider increased consumption of coal for gasification or combustion to compensate for parasitic energy for CCS
- 12% drop in efficiency from 33% to 21% on top of IGCC parasitic loss
• This means power for compression and fans, pumps, capture system to cooling water
Additional Power Needs for CCS
Fans & pumps, 7%
Amine system Aux, 24%
CO2 compression, 53%
Other, 3%
Cooling system F&P, 13%
Financial Issues
21
Proximity to Infrastructure
Municipal / Public Power
Municipal or Private Water Utilities
Convergence of Issues on Geologic Sequestration and Public Power Utilities
Financial Issues
22
Municipal or Private Water Utilities
• Electricity Customers of Public Power Utility
• Cost of Monitoring near Water Resources
• Anticipated Long-Term Drinking Water use 50-100 years from now
• CCS parasitic energy means Utility uses Twice the Water for Generation
Municipal or Private Water Utilities
23
Proximity to Infrastructure
Municipal / Public Power
Municipal or Private Water Utilities
Convergence of Issues on Geologic Sequestration and Public Power Utilities
Personnel Shortfall
Financial Issues
24
Personnel Shortfall
• Drilling Expertise Needed in Contractors
• Well Monitoring Experience Needed in Contractors
Personnel Shortfall
25
Proximity to Infrastructure
Municipal / Public Power
Municipal or Private Water Utilities
Convergence of Issues on Geologic Sequestration and Public Power Utilities
Personnel Shortfall
Financial Issues
State Permit / Regulatory Issues
26
State Permit / Regulatory Issues
• Most States Don’t Update Geologic / Hydrologic Data
• Most States have no UIC Permitting Staff for this Scale of Permitting
• Some States will need to get State primacy
• Most States have not Surveyed for Abandoned Wells, Faults, etc.
• All States have not Forecasted Expected Groundwater use over 50-100 Years
State Permit / Regulatory Issues
27
Location! Location! Location!Is not the same as
Geology! Geology! Geology!• Load and population drives location decisions for new
power plants- Access to water for cooling water- Access to rail lines for coal- Access to transmission lines
Land Use• NETL’s 2006 report suggests 1 acre of surface land for
each 100 MW of generating capacity• NETL projects capture and compression to require 60
acres for 500 MW or 12 times the first estimate• The subsurface land use may not be available due to
state laws or lack of law on right of way on subsurfaces
28
Injected Material Mass of Material(mil. Metric tons/year)
CO2 emissions from power plants 2,400[1]
CO2 in Class II wells for oil recovery 43[2]
Class I hazardous waste 22[3]
Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, total
2
[1] Electric Power Research Institute, Electricity Technologies in a Carbon-Constrained World.[2] Source: Advanced Resourced International, 2007,[3] U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report: Based on 2005 Data, Dec. 2006, at 2-5, Exhibit 2-5.
For Engineers and the Left-Brained… Comparison of CCS Volumes to Current UIC Volumes:
29
…and for the rest of the sane world!
Comparison of CCS Volumes to Current UIC Volumes:
22 432
2400
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Class I Class II (EOR) Power Plants Regional Partnerships
30
Projections from EIA:
2,400 Million Metric Tons in 2006
3,044 Million Metric Tons in 2030
(1.1% growth rate per year)
Total CO2 from Power Plants
31
Seismic Risk
Seismic Risk and “geologic time” restrictions in UIC Class I derived from RCRA Guidance (EPA)
32
Subsurface space required for only 40% of the Carbon Dioxide from a 300 MW power plant for one year:
2,750 Acres
Source: J. Gledhill, Policy Navigation for APPA
33
Subsurface space required to sequester 40% of the Carbon Dioxide from approx. 9
500 MW Plants over their 40-year lifetime:
2,580 square miles
Roughly 1.5 times the size of Rhode Island
Roughly half the size of Connecticut
34
Retrofit of Power Plants:What to do with Existing Fleet?
• Existing coal and gas fleet have no commercial available and demonstrated technology
• A retrofit unit with a pre-retrofit energy conversion efficiency of 33%, means a post-CCS retrofit efficiency of 21%, a loss of >30% of output of power plant
• Replacement of parasitic power in utility sector means installation of over 100 GW of additional new capacity
• Replacement power and capture/compression systems mean huge energy capacity shortages
• Are we building additional capacity with coal to run CCS?• Space-surface and subsurface• Right of Way and subsurface ownership issues
35
Proximity to Infrastructure
Municipal / Public Power
Municipal or Private Water Utilities
Convergence of Issues on Geologic Sequestration and Public Power Utilities
Personnel Shortfall
Financial Issues
State Permit / Regulatory Issues
36
Law of Unintended Consequences
• CCS and IGCC will cause power plants to use/gasify more coal than PC plants
• CO2 capture system (amine) requires twice the water as PC plant
• APPA asks: Does the public understand the consequences of using more coal and more water to produce electricity?
• Is more water use realistic in all states?
37
Conclusions: OK, Let’s Assume Carbon Separation Technology Works and is Cheap
• How much does electricity cost the consumer with carbon separation + CCS? 2x? More?
• What will costs of carbon dioxide control costs (CCS) do to dispatch costs to the entire utility sector?
• What do these costs do to costs in fully de-regulated markets? RTO markets?
• APPA asks: Do our customers really understand these increases? Do we?
38
Conclusions, Continued• APPA supports Future Gen and DOE Regional Partnership
Projects along with private research• APPA urges more research on geo-engineering in addition to
CCS – don’t put all eggs in CCS basket• Slow down the selection of CCS technology – we need to know
more• Consumer deserves to understand costs to monthly electric bills• Cities and consumers need to understand higher risk profile to
electric utility sector• Power plant locations are dictated by load (population),
transmission lines, and rail – not geology• Will Americans accept power plants that use up to 40% more
coal to support CCS?
39
Contacts
Theresa PughDirector, Environmental ServicesAmerican Public Power Association
(APPA)1875 Connecticut Ave, NW Ste 1200Washington, DC 20009(202) 467-2943tpugh@APPAnet.org
Engineering Questions: JP Blackford(202) 467-2956
http://www.appanet.org/files/HTM/ccs.html• Horinko legal liability overview• Carter technology review paper• Carter paper on parasitic energy impacts• UIC drinking water issues, power plants and CCS issues
top related