overview of energy life cycle analysis at netl for carbon...

Overview of Energy Life Cycle Analysis at NETL for Carbon Utilization Technologies

Timothy J. Skone, P.E. LCA Webinar for the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

December 5, 2017

2

Energy Life Cycle AnalysisCradle-to-grave environmental footprint of energy systems

Extraction Processing Transport Conversion Delivery Use

Mfg.

Constr.MissionDevelop and utilize the LCA framework and methods to support the evaluation of sustainable energy systems both in and outside of the Department of Energy

VisionA world-class research and analysis team that integrates results which inform and recommend sustainable energy strategy and technology development

• e n e r g y s u s t a i n a b i l i t y •

netl.doe.gov/LCA [email protected]

3

Life Cycle Analysis TeamTim Skone – 18 yearsFederal Team LeadBS Chemical Engineering | P.E. Env. Engr.

Greg Cooney – 10 yearsContractor Team LeadMS Env Engr | BS Chem Engr

James Littlefield – 17 yearsNatural gas, system & process designBS Chemical Engineering

Joe Marriott – 12 yearsSenior AdvisorPhD Environmental Engr & Public Policy

Matt Jamieson – 8 yearsPower systems, CO2-enhanced oil recoveryBS Mechanical Engineering

Michele Mutchek – 5 yearsLoan program office, federal LCA commons MS Civil/Env/Sust Engr|BS Env Sciences

Michelle Krynock – 2 yearsNatural gas, fuel cells, coalBS Civil/Env Engr & Public Policy

Derrick Carlson – 7 yearsI/O LCA, Energy efficiencyPhD/MS Civ/Env Engr|BS Chemistry

Dan Augustine – 1 yearNatural gas, visual analyticsBS Energy Engineering

Ambica Pegallapati – 5 yearsBiofuels, bioreactor developmentPhD Env Engr|BS Civil Eng

Greg Zaimes – 4 yearsEnergy analysis; transportation fuels PhD Civ/Env Eng; BS Physics

Selina Roman-White – 1 yearEnergy/environmentBS Chem. Engr.

Junior-level LCA – 2 yearsEnergy/environmentMS Civil/Env Engr | BS Env Engr

4

CO2 Utilization at DOE Fossil Energy (FE)

EOR is a FE/NETL supported area, but is NOT considered under the Carbon Use/Reuse Program

• What is CO2 Utilization?• FE and NETL Context

5

Offset CO2 capture costs, fix CO2 in stable products, and produce services/products that reduce the release of greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere.

U.S. DOE FE: Carbon Use & Reuse Drivers

Biological Capture & Conversion Fuels & Chemicals Mineralization &

Cements

6

What is Unique about CO2 Utilization LCA?

• Technically…Nothing.

• Every LCA depends on the goal of the study

“What question do you want to answer?”

“Why are you performing the LCA?”

7

• Question: When commercially deployed, will the CO2U product, or derived product, result in lower greenhouse gas emissions on a life cycle basis then the state-of-the-art alternative in the market that provides the equivalent service or function to society?

• Metric: Percent difference in life cycle GHG emissions on a carbon dioxide equivalent basis; IPCC, AR-5, 100-year time period.

• Scope• Geographical Representation: United States (for deployment, LCA is global)• Temporal Representation: Year of Market Entry + Product Service Life• Scale of Market: Product or Facility/Operation

CO2U Project Life Cycle GHG Analysis Definition

8

• U.S. DOE Office of Fossil Energy Sponsored Workshop

• 40 Participants• LCA Subject Matter Experts

(North America and Europe)• CO2U Project Leads and Engineers (Industry and

Academia

• Goal: Develop consensus based LCA Guidance for DOE CO2U Projects

• Outcome: Revised Draft LCA Guidance Document for evaluating CO2 utilization concepts – Spring 2018

CO2U LCA Workshop – October 2017

9

• Emerging technologies have limited performance data, commercial performance often estimated based on research/project goals.

• Complex functional units and highly integrated system boundaries challenge results interpretation for a single product of interest.

• What is the “correct” business as usual case for comparison? Average or state-of-the-art performance? Today or 10-years in the future when deployed in the market?

• Will the product actually displace a more GHG intensive product from being produced? Or, simply be additive?

• Attributional vs. Consequential LCA – will the product have an effect on it’s primary market or secondary markets?

CO2 Utilization LCA Challenges

A Life Cycle Analysis Perspective ofCO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery

11

Life Cycle Emissions for Traditional CO2-EORCompared to rest of U.S. crude mix

† Cooney, G., Jamieson, M., Marriott, J., Bergerson, J., Brandt, A., & Skone, T. (2016). Updating the U.S. Life Cycle GHG Petroleum Baseline to 2014 with Projections to 2040 Using Open-Source Engineering-Based Models. Environmental Science & Technology.

Baseline 2005 2014

Crude Prod and Transport

(kg CO2e/bbl)

77.4 60.2

Crude Prod and Transport

(g CO2e/MJ gas)

13.0 10.3

Well to Wheel(g CO2e/MJ gas)

98.1 96.2

12

Life Cycle of Gasoline from CO2-EOR Crude

Gasoline Combustion

Gasoline Refining

EOR Crude Extraction

Natural Dome CO2

Power Plant Captured CO2

Power Plant Fuel &

Transport

CO2 Pipeline Transport

Gasoline Transport

EOR Crude Transport

Displaced Electricity

1 bbl gasoline

1.1 bbl crude

1.1 bbl crude 123 kg C†

440 kg CO2112 kg C

440 kg CO2

0.54 MWh

206 kg coal 440 kg CO2

Scenario shown is for 2 bbl crude per tonne CO2 recovery ratio and a 550-MW supercritical pulverized coal power plant with 90% CO2 capture

546 kg CO2149 kg C

119

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

SCPC

Glob

al W

arm

ing

Pote

ntia

l(k

g CO

₂e/b

bl c

ombu

sted

gas

olin

e)

119

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

SCPC

Glob

al W

arm

ing

Pote

ntia

l(k

g CO

₂e/b

bl c

ombu

sted

gas

olin

e)

167

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

SCPC

Glob

al W

arm

ing

Pote

ntia

l(k

g CO

₂e/b

bl c

ombu

sted

gas

olin

e)

171

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

SCPC

Glob

al W

arm

ing

Pote

ntia

l(k

g CO

₂e/b

bl c

ombu

sted

gas

olin

e)

537

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

SCPC

Glob

al W

arm

ing

Pote

ntia

l(k

g CO

₂e/b

bl c

ombu

sted

gas

olin

e)

539

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

SCPC

Glob

al W

arm

ing

Pote

ntia

l(k

g CO

₂e/b

bl c

ombu

sted

gas

olin

e)

588

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

SCPC

Glob

al W

arm

ing

Pote

ntia

l(k

g CO

₂e/b

bl c

ombu

sted

gas

olin

e)

649

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

SCPC

Glob

al W

arm

ing

Pote

ntia

l(k

g CO

₂e/b

bl c

ombu

sted

gas

olin

e)

364

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

SCPC

Glob

al W

arm

ing

Pote

ntia

l(k

g CO

₂e/b

bl c

ombu

sted

gas

olin

e)

581

364

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

Dome SCPC

Glob

al W

arm

ing

Pote

ntia

l(k

g CO

₂e/b

bl c

ombu

sted

gas

olin

e)

Some of the injected CO2goes toward

producing NGLs

1 bbl gasoline

† Lyons, W.C., and Plisga, G.J. (2011). Standard Handbook of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering . Gulf Professional Publishing. – Crude content of oil is 84-87 wt%.

13


Gasoline Combustion

Gasoline Refining


Natural Dome CO2


Power Plant Fuel &

Transport


Gasoline Transport

EOR Crude Transport


1 MJ gasoline

0.03 bbl crude

0.03 bbl crude

0.09 kg CO2

0.1 kWh

0.04 kg coal 0.09 kg CO2

Scenario shown is for 2 bbl crude per tonne CO2 recovery ratio and a 550-MW supercritical pulverized coal power plant with 90% CO2 capture

1 MJ gasoline

0.09 kg CO2

115

72

-80

-40

0

40

80

120

160

Dome SCPC

Glob

al W

arm

ing

Pote

ntia

l(g

CO

₂e/M

J com

bust

ed g

asol

ine)

Petroleum Baseline

14


Gasoline Combustion

Gasoline Refining


Natural Dome CO2


Power Plant Fuel &

Transport


Gasoline Transport

EOR Crude Transport


1 MJ gasoline

0.03 bbl crude

0.09 kg CO2

0.1 kWh

0.04 kg coal 0.09 kg CO2

1 MJ gasoline

0.09 kg CO2

Upstream CO20.03 bbl crude

CO2 intensity of upstream

CO2

115

72

-80

-40

0

40

80

120

160

Dome SCPC

Glob

al W

arm

ing

Pote

ntia

l(g

CO

₂e/M

J com

bust

ed g

asol

ine)

Petroleum Baseline

15

0.10

-0.39 -0.54

-1.17

0.10

-0.94 -1.05

-2.49

-3.5

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Dome SCPC SCPC/30%Biomass

NGCC Dome SCPC SCPC/30%Biomass

NGCC

CO₂ I

nten

sity

of U

pstr

eam

CO

₂(k

g CO

₂e/k

g CO

₂)Fuel Upstream CO₂ Source CO₂ Pipeline Power Displacement

CO2 Intensity of Upstream CO2Grid displacement impacts (power examples, same concept for industrial source)

2014 Grid Mix(566 g CO2e/kWh)

Fleet Coal(1,041 g CO2e/kWh)

16

Net Carbon Negative Oil LCA StudyEOR for GHG Reduction: Achievable low-carbon fuel targets are dependent on the intersection of CO2 source GHG intensity & crude recovery efficiency

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

CO₂ I

nten

sity

of U

pstr

eam

CO

₂(k

g CO

₂e/k

g CO

₂)

Crude Recovery Ratio (bbl/tonne CO₂ sequestered)

Baseline

10% Reduction

25% Reduction

50% Reduction

Net Zero GHG Fuel

-50 g CO₂e/MJ-100 g CO₂e/MJ

Natural Dome

SCPC-2014 GridSCPC/30%-2014 Grid

SCPC-Fleet CoalSCPC/30%-Fleet Coal

NGCC-2014 Grid

NGCC-Fleet Coal

Low EOR/ROZ Performance High

17

• An LCA framework allows for in-depth examination of the system where captured CO₂ from fossil power is paired with EOR/ROZ

• Key considerations are the carbon intensity of the power that is displaced by the new plant equipped with carbon capture and the willingness of the crude producer to behave like a sequestration site

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

CO₂ I

nten

sity

of U

pstr

eam

CO

₂ (kg

CO

₂e/k

g CO

₂)


Baseline

10% Reduction

25% Reduction

50% Reduction

Net Zero

100 g/MJ Sequestered

Natural Dome

SCPC-2014 GridSCPC/30%-2014 Grid

SCPC-Fleet CoalSCPC/30%-Fleet Coal

NGCC-2014 Grid

NGCC-Fleet Coal

Coal-fired power

Gas-fired power

FuelCombustion

Refining

Crude Extraction

Power Plant

Fuel Extraction &

Transport

CO2Transport

FuelTransport

Crude Transport


fuel

fuel

crude

CO2

kWh

coal/gas

CO2

crude

CO2 Intensity of Upstream CO2

Crude Recovery

Ratio

EOR for GHG Reduction: Achievable low-carbon fuel targets are dependent on the intersection of CO2 source GHG intensity & crude recovery efficiency

50 g/MJ Sequestered

Low EOR/ROZ Performance High

Net Carbon Negative Oil LCA Study

18






CO2 Utilization LCA ChallengesHow do they apply to CO2-EOR?

19







EOR using anthropogenic CO2 is relatively new, residual oil zone applications are novel – performance data limited.

20

• EOR Industry Average Performance*- 2.2 barrels/tonne CO2 sequestered

• Residual Oil Zone (ROZ) Data Summary:**- Four counties in the Permian Basin of West

Texas- Each county divided into partitions (32 each

for low and high quality)- Crude Recovery Ranges (bbl/tonne CO2

sequestered):- HQ: 1.2 – 5.2 (production wtd. mean 3.2)- LQ: 0.07 – 4.2 (production wtd. mean 1.5)

CO2-EOR Performance DataCrude Recovery Ratio (barrels of crude oil per tonne of CO2 sequestered)

* Azzolina, N. A., Nakles, D. V., Gorecki, C. D., Peck, W. D., Ayash, S. C., Melzer, L. S., & Chatterjee, S. (2015). CO2 storage associated with CO2 enhanced oil recovery: A statistical analysis of historical operations. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 37, 384-397. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.03.037

** NETL, 2016; Defining an Overlooked Domestic Oil Resource: A Four-County Appraisal of the San Andres Residual Oil Zone (ROZ) “Fairway” of the Permian Basin, DOE/NETL-2015/1730, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA; report prepared by Advance Resources, Inc. (Draft Report Publication Pending)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Cum

ulat

ive

Oil

Reco

vere

d (k

ilo to

nne)

Crude Recovery Ratio (bbl/tonne CO2)

Higher Quality ROZ Lower Quality ROZ

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Cum

ulat

ive

CO2

Sequ

este

red

(kilo

tonn

e)

Crude Recovery Ratio (bbl/tonne CO2)

Higher Quality ROZ Lower Quality ROZ

21








Mixed product functional unit is more accurate for comparison but less practical for decision making – tradeoffs.

22

CO2-EOR is a Complex System to ModelMultiple products from a single interconnected system

Possible products from this system:• Electricity• Crude oil• Refined fuel• Captured CO₂• Some combination of the above

23

CO2-EOR is a Complex System to ModelIf fuel is the product of interest, need to displace the electricity co-product

• Assume that demand for electricity is relatively inelastic w.r.t. changes in supply

• Could displace anything from wind at 15 g CO2e/kWh to retiring coal at 1,300 g CO2e/kWh

• Narrowing the range of this displacement credit requires careful thought about the long-run marginal change to the grid induced by new power generation, and testing of the range’s impact on conclusions being made in the study

24

Net Carbon Negative Oil LCA StudyAs the grid decarbonizes, the CO2 intensity of upstream CO2 increases

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

CO₂ I

nten

sity

of U

pstr

eam

CO

₂(k

g CO

₂e/k

g CO

₂)


Baseline

10% Reduction

25% Reduction

50% Reduction

-50 g CO₂e/MJ-100 g CO₂e/MJ

NGCC

Net Zero GHG Fuel1,041 g/kWh

163 g/kWh

Low ROZ Quality High

• As capture is implemented, the grid becomes less GHG intensive

• Hypothetical example depicts range from fleet coal (1,041) to a carbon-constrained grid (163)

• This analysis can help determine the grid GHG intensity at which it is no longer possible to hit a target

• Under full fossil capture, transportation would likely shift away from conventional technology

25









Comparison to the 2005 Petroleum Baseline, average fuels consumed today, future crude oil supply mix in 2040?

26

Petroleum Baseline is a Snapshot in TimeChanging market dynamics and operations will shift baseline over time

95.9 96

.0 96.1

96.0

95.8

95.7

95.7

95.8

95.8

95.9

95.9

95.9

96.0

96.0

95.9

95.9

96.0 96

.2 96.3 96

.596

.4 96.5

96.6

96.7

96.7

96.7

96.7High economic

growth

High oil and gas resource

High oil price

Low economic growth

Low oil and gas resource

Low oil price

94

95

96

97

98

99

2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039W

TW G

WP

100-

yr A

R5g

CO₂e

/MJ g

asol

ine

Maximum percent changes from the 2014 WTW gasoline result are +2.1% and -1.4%

† Cooney, G., Jamieson, M., Marriott, J., Bergerson, J., Brandt, A., & Skone, T. (2016). Updating the U.S. Life Cycle GHG Petroleum Baseline to 2014 with Projections to 2040 Using Open-Source Engineering-Based Models. Environmental Science & Technology.

98.190.7 94.196.2

88.092.0

Gasoline Jet Diesel

g CO

₂e/M

J

2005

2014

-1.9% -3.0% -2.2%

What is the state of the art system for comparison?

27










What are the market consequences of producing another barrel of crude oil from CO2-EOR? 30% of the market?

28

U.S. - Gulf of Mexico

2014 U.S. Average

Venezuela

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

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

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Em

isiso

ns(g

CO

₂e/M

J Com

bust

ed G

asol

ine)

Percent of Crude Source Displaced by CO₂-EOR Crude

CO2-EOR Crude DisplacementDoes displacement occur? What crude source is actually displaced?

• Graph shows GWP of CO₂-EOR through combustion taking into account possible credits for replacing crudes from different sources

• EOR crude recovery ratio is 2.2 bbls/tonne

• Plant is SCPC w/ 90% capture

29

CO2-EOR Crude DisplacementMarket scale affects consequences of displacement in addition to source displaced

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Scal

e of

new

EO

R pr

oduc

tion

(as s

hare

of e

xist

ing

crud

e su

pply

)

Share of existing crude supply displaced by new EOR production

• Modeling specific life cycle scenarios is relatively straightforward

• Understanding net system effects as new production displaces existing production is more complicated

30











31

Attributional vs Consequential LCAConceptual Framework

Attributional Consequential

Purpose Regulatory compliance, Corporate footprint

Policy implications

Goal What are the environmental burdensof a particular product?

How does new system changethe world around it?

Functional unit Single product Multiple products

(within a defined world)

Boundaries Truncated(to isolate burdens of a single product)

Expanded(to include indirect effects)

Uncertainty Methods for isolating a single product can arbitrarily shift burdens between systems Extent to which system alters the world around it

Both types of analyses – attributional and consequential – are valid LCA approaches; context of a study must be known before determining which one is appropriate

32

Attributional vs Consequential LCAHow does a supply chain affect surrounding systems?

Surrounding systems• Competing products• Other markets

Uncertainties• Changes over time• Scalability• Producer/consumer behavior

Examples• Ethanol (food for fuel)• LNG exports (global energy market)• EOR (global crude market) – maybe? Image source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Consequential LCA attempts to consider the broader effect(s) of

supply chain changes.

33

Attributional vs Consequential LCAWhere could a consequential LCA approach apply to a CO2-EOR system?

• How does the displacement credit for electricity change over time as the grid decarbonizes?

• Does EOR crude/fuel production displace other sources of evenas world demand for continues to increase?

• Are natural sources of CO2still being utilized after captured fossil sources emerge?

34






CO2 Utilization LCA Challenges - SummaryHow do they apply to CO2-EOR?





35

LCA - More Complete Picture, More Uncertainty

36

Contact Information

Timothy J. Skone, P.E.Senior Environmental EngineerStrategic Energy Analysis (412) 386-4495 • [email protected]

netl.doe.gov/LCA [email protected] @NETL_News

37

Evaluating the Climate Benefits of CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Life Cycle Analysis (2015)

Cooney, G.; Littlefield, J.; Marriott, J.; & Skone, T. J.• CO2-EOR is a GHG-intensive way of extracting crude

compared to conventional extraction methods • Linking EOR with anthropogenic CO2 yields a benefit

due to the displacement of uncaptured electricity

Recent Petroleum-related LCA Work

Updating the U.S. Life Cycle GHG Petroleum Baseline to 2014 with Projections to 2040 Using Open-Source Engineering-Based Models (2016)

Cooney, G., Jamieson, M., Marriott, J., Bergerson, J., Brandt, A., Skone, T.

• 98.1 vs. 96.2 g CO2e/MJ gasoline (-2%) for 2005 to 2014• Changing baseline values lead to potential compliance

challenges with frameworks such as the EISA Section 526

Ongoing Work• Adding CO2

capture to refineries• Full environmental

inventory for the Petroleum Baseline

• Using field EOR data to inform models

• Inclusion of biofuels in U.S. transportation consumption

Collaborators

38

Recent Natural gas-related LCA Work

LossExtraction — Processing — Transmission — Distribution Rate

Cradle-to-Extraction 4.7 1,086 0.5% 0.43%

Cradle-to-Processing 4.7 + 2.6 1,020 6.6% 0.71%

Cradle-to-Transmission 4.7 + 2.6 + 5.2 1,005 7.9% 1.24%

Cradle-to-Distribution 4.7 + 2.6 + 5.2 + 4.5 1,000 8.4% 1.70%

Processing Only (GtG) 2.6 1,020 6.1% 0.25%

Transmission Only (GtG) 5.2 1,005 1.5% 0.52%

Distribution Only (GtG) 4.5 1,000 0.5% 0.45%

Boundary Upstream Emissions (g CH ) NG ExitingBoundary (g)

EmissionRate

Numerator Denominator

Synthesis of recent ground-level methane emission measurements from the US natural gas supply chain (2017)

Littlefield, J.; Marriott, J.; Schivley, G.; Skone, T. J.• Overall Result: 1.7% CH₄ emission rate across the NG life cycle• Emission reduction opportunities: Pneumatic devices –

widespread use in production and gathering stages; Unassigned” emissions (observed, but not fully understood); Gathering Systems (new to emissions inventories, but highly aggregated)

Using Common Boundaries to Assess CH₄ Emissions: a Life Cycle Evaluation of Natural Gas & Coal Power Systems (2016)

Littlefield, J.; Marriott, J.; Schivley, G.; Cooney, G.; Skone, T. J.• Emphasizes the importance of boundary selection when

expressing CH₄ emission rates and comparing NG to other energy sources

• Includes use of technology warming potential as a method for comparing cumulative radiative forcing

Ongoing Work• Creating a 2016

baseline for natural gas produced in the U.S.

• Collaboration with ONE Future

• Improved uncertainty characterization

Collaborators

39

Recent Coal-related LCA Work

Identifying/Quantifying Environmental Trade-offs Inherent in GHG Reduction Strategies for Coal-Fired Power (2015)

Schivley, G.; Ingwersen, W.; Marriott, J.; Hawkins, T.; Skone, T. J.

• Upgrading boiler & environmental controls reduces all impacts• Intensive biomass (hybrid poplar) can increase some impacts• Modeling decisions (growth before or after burning) makes a

difference for climate impacts when accounting for emission timing

Understanding the Contribution of Mining and Transportation to the Total Life Cycle Impacts of Coal Exported from the United States (2016)

Mutchek, M.; Cooney, G.; Pickenpaugh, G.; Marriott, J.; Skone, T. J.

• Emissions from coal mining activities are more significant in Australia and Indonesia than PRB

• PRB disadvantages: longer transport distance, lower heating value• Non-GWP impact categories are driven by emissions from diesel

combustion (transport and mining) and affected by differences in diesel regulations between exporting countries

Ongoing Work• Creating a

regionalized 2017 baseline for coal produced in the U.S.

• Options for energy in the North Slope of Alaska

• Updated advanced power plant design LCAs

Collaborators

40

Cooney, G., Littlefield, J., Marriott, J., & Skone, T. J. (2015). Evaluating the Climate Benefits of CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Life Cycle Analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(12), 7491-7500. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00700. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b00700

Cooney, G., Jamieson, M., Marriott, J., Bergerson, J., Brandt, A., & Skone, T. J. (2016). Updating the U.S. Life Cycle GHG Petroleum Baseline to 2014 with Projections to 2040 Using Open-Source Engineering-Based Models. Environmental Science & Technology. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02819http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b02819

Littlefield, J. A., Marriott, J., Schivley, G. A., & Skone, T. J. (2017). Synthesis of recent ground-level methane emission measurements from the U.S. natural gas supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, 118-126. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.101http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617301166

Littlefield, J. A., Marriott, J., Schivley, G. A., Cooney, G., & Skone, T. J. (2016). Using Common Boundaries to Assess Methane Emissions: A Life Cycle Evaluation of Natural Gas and Coal Power Systems. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(6), 1360-1369. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12394http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12394/full

Mutchek, M., Cooney, G., Pickenpaugh, G., Marriott, J., & Skone, T. (2016). Understanding the Contribution of Mining and Transportation to the Total Life Cycle Impacts of Coal Exported from the United States. Energies, 9(7). doi: 10.3390/en9070559http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/9/7/559

Schivley, G., Ingwersen, W. W., Marriott, J., Hawkins, T. R., & Skone, T. J. (2015). Identifying/Quantifying Environmental Trade-offs Inherent in GHG Reduction Strategies for Coal-Fired Power. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(13), 7562-7570. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01118http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.5b01118

Citations and Links to Recent Work

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b00700

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b02819

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617301166

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12394/full

http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/9/7/559

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.5b01118

41

• “80-20” Rule: Guidance should work for 80% of the cases but be flexible enough to accommodate the 20% that don’t fit perfectly

• Reduce the LCA effort while increasing consistency and comparability

• Transparency, Reproducibility, and Un-biased: Clear Justification and Documentation

• LCA Knowledge Level: Novice to Expert

• Primary Audience: FOA Principle Investigators

• Secondary Audience: Anyone performing a CO2U Project LCA

CO2U LCA Guidance Document Themes

42

Overall Result: 1.7% CH₄ life cycle emission rate

0.70%

1.11%1.23%

1.57%1.65%

0.0%0.1%0.2%0.3%0.4%0.5%0.6%0.7%0.8%0.9%1.0%1.1%1.2%1.3%1.4%1.5%1.6%1.7%1.8%1.9%2.0%2.1%2.2%

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08U

nass

igne

d (o

utsid

e Ba

rnet

t)

Una

ssig

ned

(Bar

nett

)

Com

plet

ion

Chem

ical

Pum

ps

Equi

pmen

t Lea

ks

Pneu

mat

ics

Prod

uced

wat

er ta

nks

Liq.

unl

oadi

ng (n

o pl

unge

r)

Liq.

unl

oadi

ng (p

lung

er)

Com

pres

sor p

acki

ng

Com

pres

sor e

xhau

st

Dehy

drat

or v

ents

Gath

erin

g fa

cilit

ies

Gath

erin

g pi

pelin

es

Proc

essin

g fa

cilit

y

Proc

essin

g fu

gitiv

es

Tran

smiss

ion

stat

ions

Stor

age

stat

ions

Com

pres

sor e

xhau

st

Pneu

mat

ics

Stat

ion

vent

ing

Oth

er

Supe

r-em

itter

s

Mai

ns

Serv

ice

pipe

lines

Met

erin

g &

regu

latin

g

Cust

omer

met

ers

Mai

nten

ance

Ups

ets

PRODUCTION GATHERING PROCESSING TRANSMISSION & STORAGE DISTRIBUTION

CH₄ Emission Rate (g CH₄ em

itted/g NG

delivered)g

CH₄/

MJ d

eliv

ered

NG

Measured Augmented Cumulative Emission Rate

(0.12 g CH₄/MJ)

(0.20 g CH₄/MJ)

(0.22 g CH₄/MJ)

(0.28 g CH₄/MJ)(0.29 g CH₄/MJ)

Aside from total emission rates, results point to top emission reduction and research opportunities

43

NETL “Techno-Regions” and VariabilityUnderstanding technological & regional variability allows focused policy and R&D

12.4

23.0

10.314.5

18.8

24.7

48.6

20.8

29.9 31.21.3%

2.8%

1.1%

1.6%

1.3%1.6% (national)

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Shale, Ft. Worth Basin Tight Gas, RockyMountains

Onshore Conventional,Gulf Coast

Shale, Appalachian Basin Tight Gas, Gulf Coast

CH₄Emission Rate (m

ass CH₄ emissions/m

ass delivered NG as

percentage)

GHG

Em

issi

ons

(g C

O₂e

/MJ N

G d

eliv

ered

)61

% o

f NG

goes

thro

ugh

dist

ribut

ion

afte

r tra

nsm

issio

n

Total CO₂e (100-yr GWP) Total CO₂e (20-yr GWP) CH₄ emission rate

NETL’s results before assimilation of EDF

studies.

Source: NETL (2016) Life Cycle Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction and Power Generation

• There are scenarios where CH4 emission rates greater than 5% are likely• But the national average is lower (1.6% based on NETL’s 2016 report)

44

Inventory perspective• Synthesis result, U.S. annualized: 0.29 g CH4/MJ 7,349 Gg CH4/yr• EPA 2016 Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI) result for 2012 (after removing

condensate tanks) is 6,716 Gg CH4/yr• Synthesis result is 9% higher than GHGI because

- Different data sources are used for production emission sources- Synthesis includes unassigned emissions

Life cycle CO2e perspective• Includes CO2 and N2O in addition to CH4• 2013 Global Warming Potentials (GWP)• 13.8 g CO2e/MJ (100-yr GWP) and 28.6 g CO2e/MJ (20-yr GWP)

Additional Perspective

45

Conclusions and Recommendations

• Emission reduction opportunities- Pneumatic devices – widespread use in production and gathering stages- “Unassigned” emissions (observed, but not fully understood)- Gathering Systems (new to emissions inventories, but highly aggregated)

• Research opportunities- Improve activity data on pneumatic devices throughout supply chain- Identify drivers and regional variability for unassigned emissions- Disaggregate gathering emissions at the category level to individual

system components

overview of energy life cycle analysis at netl for carbon...

Documents