Transcript Carbon Capture and Stoarge and the Location of Electric

Carbon Capture and Storage and
the Location of Industrial
Facilities
Jeff Bielicki
Research Fellow
Energy Technology Innovation Project
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Harvard University
Presentation at Research Experience in Carbon Sequestration 2007
Montana State University, August 2, 2007
1
What does CCS do?
• Couples industrial organization with geologic
organization.
– CO2 transport and storage requirements add
additional costs.
• CO2 transport and storage costs introduce a
spatial ‘tax’.
– Costs depend on the distance that CO2 must be
transported.
• This presentation addresses how the economies
of scale for CO2 transportation interact with
those of shipping coal and transmitting
electricity.
2
CO2 Transport and Storage
• Cost model balances CO2 pressure from
storage reservoir back to source.
– Includes all fixed and variable costs
• Composed of:
– Pipeline transportation
– Compression/Pressurization
– Injection
3
Existing U.S. Pipelines
Existing CO2 Pipelines in the United States
Canyon Reef Carriers
Cortez
L
(mi)
D
(in)
Capacity
(MMSCFD)
ROT
(kt/(yr*m2))
140
16
240
35,725
20
300
28,580
30
1000
42,341
4000
169,364
502
McElmo Creek
40
8
60
35,725
Bravo
218
20
382
36,392
Transpetco/Bravo
120
12.75
175
41,022
Sheep Mountain
184
20
330
31,438
224
24
480
31,755
140
16
600
89,313
26
1200
67,645
12.00
150
39,694
250
48,605
100
59,542
Central Basin
Este
West Texas
119
127
8
12
Llano Lateral
53
8
12
26,463
100

 mCO2
D
 11,000


1/ 2





CO2 mass flow rate in kt/yr.
Diameter in meters.
59,542
26,463
Sources: Map created from data provided by US Office of Pipeline Safety (2003); CO 2 pipeline data collected from Oil & Gas Journal and operator websites.
4
Pipeline CO2 Transportation
• US Pipeline Construction Data
– Onshore pipelines
– Oil & Gas Journal, 1990-2005.
Regression:
$ = 1,686,630∙1.0541 YR∙D0.9685∙L0.7315
• Using CO2 Pipeline Flowrates
$ = 0.3778∙1.0541YR∙m1.4685∙L0.7315
Pipeline Construction
Costs: 1990-2005
Coefficient
Cost ($)
Year – 1990
(YR)
0.0526***
(0.0040)
Ln(D)
0.0969***
(0.034)
Ln(L
0.732***
(0.012)
Constant
14.338***
(0.049)
Obs.
1052
Adj. R2
0.87
Standard errors in
parentheses: ***p<0.01
Length in km.
5
Transporting CO2
• Compression and Pressurization:
– Compression from gas to liquid.1
  k k 1 
T0  P1
 
MWc  mCO2  C p 
 1

1,000 c  P0 



– Pressurization as liquid.
• Pressurization at source – Pressure drop = 10 MPa at
storage site.

MWp  L 
m f 1
8
 2 D 5  p 1000 2
– Compression/Pressurization equipment costs.2
1Assumes
CO2 is an ideal gas. 2Based on IEAGHG (2003).
6
Storing CO2
• Injection:
– Estimated costs to drill/equip/rework
wells1
– Flow/number of wells based on
parameters from In Salah and SACROC.
– Injection Resistance Pressure:
• Hydrostatic: Pres = (H2O-CO2)gh
• Dynamic: PCO
2
1Sources:

    1   2.25t
1 
k


 mCO2        ln

2


4

bk
r



n

    

JAS (2000), O & G Journal
7
Shipping Coal
• Prices paid for 22,000+ shipments of coal in
US, 79 –01.1
– Shipped from a number of basins by a variety of
means: rail, barge, truck, slurry…
– Analysis limited to approximately 4,000 records
for single mode rail transportation in the
“middle” states.
• 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments made coal
from Powder River Basin attractive.
1EIA
Mean Coal Content
PDR
Not PDR
BTU
8,938
(634.9)
12,311
(902.9)
Sulfur
0.4222
(0.3062)
1.352
(0.8137)
Ash
5.761
(1.921)
9.683
(2.235)
Moisture
21.54
(10.67)
6.255
(4.329)
Standard deviation in
parentheses.
(2005)
8
Note(s) on Shipping via Railroad
• 1979 Staggers Act
deregulated railroads.
– 1980: 22 companies
operating rail lines.
– 2007: 5 control 95% of
lines.
• 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments
– Congestion out of
Powder River Basin.
9
Coal Shipment Costs
• Four Interaction
Models:1, 2
– Two functional forms
– Two cost structures for distance
$ / t  0  2YRRR  4 BTU  6 S  8 ASH  10 M  12 DIS
$ / t  0  2
YRRR
BTU 4 S 6 ASH8 M 1 0 DIS1 2
• Powder River Basin
coal significantly
cheaper.
1Powder
River Basin dummy variables not shown (odd-numbered coefficients). 2Distance structures differentiated by whether or not 13 and  13 are estimated.
10
Case Study: Coal to Liquids Plant
• Coal gasification for synthesis gas: CO2+H2
• Fischer-Tropsch: 2CO2( g )  H2( g )  CH2(l )  CO2( g )
• 2.5 bbl oil and 1.7 tonnes CO2 from 1 tonne coal.1
• Economies of scale unclear.
– Assume size relative to SASOL plant (150,000 bbl/d)
1Assuming
75% efficient gasifier (Argrawal et al, 2007).
11
CTL Plant: CO2 vs. Coal
• Example:
– Powder River Basin coal, power model, same
cost structure, SASOL-sized plant.1
Bold points indicate
cost-minimized location
CCS transport and storage
costs relocate CTL plants…
but only so much.
1
$70/MWh; 5%, 50 years.
12
Power Plant
• ‘Typical’ PC Power Plant1
– Uses approximately 9.6 kg/s coal per MW
– Produces approximately 4.7 kg/s CO2 per MW
1Full
load, 37% efficiency
13
Power Plant: CO2 or Coal?
• Should we transport CO2 or ship coal?
•
CCS pulls power
plants away from coal
mines and towards
storage sites.
•
The tug weakens as
the distance between
the coal mine and the
storage site
decreases.
•
No significant impact
for small distances
and power plants.
14
Transmitting Electricity
• Transmission lines:
– Discrete voltage
ratings.
– Capacity degrades
over distance.
– Losses depend on
distance, diameter,
material,
impedence…
15
Electricity Transmission Costs
• Model chooses
minimum required
design.1
Different line designs
• E.g. Low load
requires smaller
diameter/lower
capacity (kV) line.
But losses
increase.
• Hence the different
slopes
1Based
on IEAGHG (2003).
16
CO2 or Electricity?
• Should we transport CO2 or transmit electricity?
Storage Site
CONCLUSION: Build power plant close to demand and transport CO2…
17
But… Part of the Grid Exists
• The ‘tug’ of CCS
transportation and
storage depends on:
– Plant size/output.
– Distance between
demand and storage.
– Amount of grid
infrastructure to be
built.
• Transition at about
30±10% transmission
investment.
18
Economies of Scale
• This presentation focused on the ‘tug’ that
CCS exerts on the location of facilities:
– Significant enough to make existing facilities
wish they were somewhere else.
– Scale of production is important.
• How do the economies of scale of CO2
transportation and interact with the economies of
scale of e- and CO2 co-production and capture?
– Distance to storage site important.
19
Next Steps
• Spatial Triangulation of Locations…
• … including Spatial Optimization for Pipeline
Routing:
F
iS
s
i
si    Vijs Ai  ...
iS jN i
...    Fijdp yijd    Vijp xij  ...
i
jN i d
i
jN i
...   F jr rj    Vijr xij    Ci , j xij
jR
jR iN j
jR iN j
20