co 2 sequestration for power plants: facing sober realities of cost, location, liability and...

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



15


• Transmission Lines• Rail Lines for Delivery• Access to Water

Resource for Generation• Must Meet Load Growth

• Need Access to CO2 Pipeline


16




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



Municipal or Private Water Utilities


Financial Issues

22


• 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


23





Personnel Shortfall

Financial Issues

24

Personnel Shortfall

• Drilling Expertise Needed in Contractors

• Well Monitoring Experience Needed in Contractors

Personnel Shortfall

25





Personnel Shortfall

Financial Issues

State Permit / Regulatory Issues

26


• 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


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





Personnel Shortfall

Financial 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) [email protected]

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

co 2 sequestration for power plants: facing sober realities of cost, location, liability and...

Documents