co 2 sequestration options for california larry myer westcarb technical director california energy...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
CO2 Sequestration Options for California
Larry MyerWESTCARB Technical DirectorCalifornia Energy Commission(916) 551-1873; larry.myer@ucop.edu
ETAAC SubcomittteeMay 10, 2007
2
Outline
Introduction to CO2 sequestration
Geologic sequestration
– Technology description
– Risks, costs, monitoring
WESTCARB
– Results for California
– Phase II status
– Role of CEC in Phase III
3
Terrestrial and Geologic Sequestration are Both Options
Terrestrial: Sequestration of carbon by natural processes in forests, plants, and soil; CO2 source independent
Geologic: Sequestration of CO2 in deep saline formations, oil and gas reservoirs and coal-beds; requires industrial processes to capture at source and transport via pipeline
Technology for both options is available and being implemented
4
Advantages and Disadvantages of Sequestration Options
Terrestrial sequestration is low cost and has environmental co-benefits, but capacity and storage life are limited compared to geologic option
Geologic sequestration offers large capacity and potential permanence, but capture costs are high and assurance of no adverse environmental impacts is required
5
Geologic Storage Mechanisms
Physical, hydrodynamic, trapping
Dissolution
Phase trapping
Mineralization
Surface adsorption
6
Primary Storage Options
Oil and gas reservoirs
– Storage with Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), Enhanced Gas Recovery (EGR)
– Storage only
Deep, unminable coal beds
– Storage with Enhanced Coal Bed Methane (ECBM) recovery
Saline formations
– Storage only
7
Geologic Sequestration Is Already Under Way
Statoil injects 1x106 tons per year at Sleipner
BP to inject 0.8x106 tons per year at In Salah
EnCana EOR project with CO2 storage in the Weyburn field
8
International Consensus on Geologic Sequestration Issues Provided by IPCC Report
“ With appropriate site selection informed by available subsurface information, a monitoring program to detect problems, a regulatory system, and the appropriate use of remediation methods to stop or control CO2 releases if they arise, the local health, safety, and environment risks of geological storage would be comparable to risks of current activities such as natural gas storage, EOR, and deep underground disposal of acid gas.”
Availability of sinks, capacity
Technology readiness
Costs
Risks
Monitoring
Remediation
IPCC, 2005
9
Many Lines of Evidence Indicate Storage Can Be Safe and Secure
Natural analogues
– Oil and gas
– CO2 formations
Industrial analogues
– Natural gas storage
– CO2 EOR
– Liquid waste disposal
Monitoring existing projects
– Sleipner
– WeyburnLocation of Natural Gas Storage
Projects in the U.S.
10
Monitoring will be a Key Element of Geologic Sequestration Projects
The oil and gas industry has developed highly sophisticated geophysical technologies which are directly applicable to geologic sequestration
Additional approaches should, and are, being developed
Monitoring requirements have not been established, but monitoring over the operational life of a geologic sequestration project using current technology would cost only ~$0.10/ton CO2
12
WESTCARB: West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership
Opportunities for terrestrial and geologic CO2 storage are being evaluated
Over 70 participating organizations
Phase I (complete): focus on regional assessments
Phase II (underway): focus on pilot studies
Phase III (coming): pre-commercial geologic field test
Midwest
Southeast
Illinois
Basin
SouthwestWest Coast
PlainsBig Sky
13
Afforestation and Fuel Management are Major Terrestrial Opportunities in California
40 year sequestrationpotential
40 year marginal costs
Lands suitable for fuelremoval
14
Major Geologic Storage Opportunities in California
Gas reservoir capacity: 1.7GtOil reservoir capacity: 3.6Gt
15
Supply Curves for Geologic Storage Improve Cost Estimates
CO2 source characterization
Capture cost estimation (about 80% of total cost)
CO2 storage capacity estimation
Transportation cost estimation
Source-sink matching
Matching sources to sinks(From H. Herzog, MIT)
Marginal Cost Curve for California, Current Conditions
16
California Afforestation Supply Curve
Supply Curve for Carbon Sequestration on Rangelandsover a 40-Year Period
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000 70,000,000 80,000,000 90,000,000
Cumulative tonnes CO2/ year(average per year over 40 years)
Cost
($)/
ton
ne C
O2
17
Pilots Planned in Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington
Pilots are representative of best sequestration options, unique technologies and approaches, in region
Pilots involve site-specific focus for– Testing technologies
– Assessing capacity
– Defining costs
– Assessing leakage risks
– Gauging public acceptance
– Testing regulatory requirements
– Validating monitoring methods
18
Rosetta Resources CO2 Storage Pilot
Lead industrial partner: Rosetta Resources
Validate sequestration potential of California Central Valley sediments
Test CO2 Storage Enhanced Gas Recovery
Inject about 2000 tons at about 3400ft depth
Focus on monitoring
19
Shasta County (CA) Terrestrial Pilot
Validation of forest growth type for rangelands
Develop and test fuel management activities; baselines and measurement and monitoring
Validate emissions reductions from conservation and sustainable forest management practices
20
Results Inform Current Policy Decisions
AB 1925 requires Energy Commission to prepare a report to Legislature on “recommendations for how the state can develop parameters to accelerate the adoption of cost-effective geologic sequestration strategies for the long-term management of industrial carbon dioxide”
AB 32– Requires statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990
levels by 2020 (target specified in Executive Order S-3-05– Electricity generated out of state “counts” in state total– Authorizes market-based compliance mechanisms
21
WESTCARB Phase III
10 year effort, beginning Oct 2007
Pre-commercial projects of scale – up to 1x106 tons CO2 sequestered per year
Focus on geologic sequestration
Significant interest expressed by several companies in California
Department of Energy Advances Commercialization of Climate Change Technology
DOE to Provide Over $450 Million to Support the Deployment of Carbon Sequestration Technologies in North America
(Oct 31, 2006 DOE Fossil Energy Techline)
22
Summary
The technological tools needed to carry out large scale CO2 sequestration are available
Results of WESTCARB Phase I show major opportunities in California in terrestrial and geologic sequestration
Field work in WESTCARB Phase II expected to commence by year-end for4 of 5 pilots
Results are proving timely for CA policy on GHG mitigation
top related