- 1 - Technische Universität Berlin Fachgebiet Wirtschafts- und InfrastrukturPolitik (WIP) 22. June 2011 Modeling a Carbon Capture, Transport and Storage

- 1 -Technische Universität BerlinFachgebiet Wirtschafts- und InfrastrukturPolitik (WIP)

22. June 2011

Modeling a Carbon Capture,

Transport and Storage

(CCTS) Infrastructure for

the Industrial Sector

IAEE International Conference, Stockholm, 22.06.2011

Technische Universität Berlin Fachgebiet Wirtschafts- und Infrastruktur Politik

Pao-Yu Oei ([email protected])

Andreas Tissen ([email protected])

Johannes Herold ([email protected])


22. June 2011

Agenda

1) Motivation

2) Description of the Model CCTSMOD

3) Implemented Data

4) Scenario Runs

a. BAU

b. Industry

c. Offshore

d. Storage

5) Conclusion and Further Research


22. June 2011

Motivation

Carbon Capture Transport and Storage – CCTS

• 70 % higher costs without CCTS (IEA, 2009)

• few running projects (esp. Industry)

Industry Sector

• Unavoidable CO2 emissions

• Solution for total decarbonization

• Higher CO2 concentration

Motivation CCTSMOD Data Scenarios Conclusion

Source: Clean Technica


22. June 2011

CO2 Emissions from Heavy Industry Sources

Energy: 348 Mt Commerce: 89 Mt

Transport: 152 Mt Households: 128 Mt

Iron & Steel: 41 Mt

Refineries: 27 Mt

Cement: 26 Mt

Pulp & Paper: 1 Mt

CO2 Emissions Germany: 837 Mt

H2 & NH3: 6 MtCO2-free alternatives

CO2-free alternatives

Petrochemical: 19CO2-free alternatives

Industry: 94 MtIndustry: 94 Mt

Industry: 120 Mt

EPRTR, 2010



22. June 2011

Decision Tree of the CCTSMOD

• Omniscient planner designs cost-optimal CCTS infrastructure given costs

for infrastructure and CO2 Certificates

• CO2 Certificate price as initiator for CCTS development

• Time horizon 2010-2050

• Solved as an MIP with the CPLEX Solver in GAMS

Source: Own illustration



22. June 2011

Model: Cost Minimization Problem

, , , , , ,

___

1min _· _ _ · _

· · _ · _ _

1

· _

Pa Pa ija

ijda ija

a

Pa

Sa

P Pa

year start

Pa Painv x z

aPa a

x planinv f f y

ij i

Pinv

ja d ijdd

h c c ccs x cinv x inv x

E L c plan pla

ert

n c inv f i

z

v f

r

n

_ ·

_ _ · _

ija

Sa

i j

SaS

c

c f f

inv y inv y

Subject to:

• Amount of produced CO2 for every emitter

• Capacity constraint for each step of the CCTS chain

• Physical balance for infrastructure



22. June 2011

Mathematical Problem: Constraints


_ · _ · 0Sj Sija jia Pj Pai

ai P S

f f match P x match S y

2a a ap p pCx Oz

_Pa Pbb a

inv xx

_ · _ _ · _ijdb jidb

b aija d d

d db a

cap d inv f cap d if nv f

_Sab a

Sby yinv

_ _ ·ijda ijbd b a

inv f pmax ipe plan

_S aa

Sy cap stor

, , _, 0_ , ,Pa SPa Pa i aja Sax fx inv z y yinv

Balance:

CO2 – Balance:

Capture:

Flow:

Storage:

Planning:

Total Storage:

Non – Negativity:


22. June 2011

Data: Sources and Sinks in Germany


Source: Own illustriation


22. June 2011

Data: Capturing Costs

Source: Own calculations based on Tzimas (2009) and WI (2008)


Variable Costs

[€/tCO2]2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Steam Coal 31,97 31,56 31,19 30,85 30,55

Gas 46,80 45,92 45,10 44,35 43,65

Lignite 29,35 29,06 28,81 28,58 28,37

Cement 16,89 16,89 16,89 16,89 16,89

Steel 16,39 16,39 16,39 16,39 16,39

Fixed Costs

[€/tCO2]2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Steam Coal 150 150 139,29 119,39 93,80

Gas 275 275 255,36 218,88 171,98

Lignite 116 116 107,71 92,33 72,54

Cement 135 135 125,36 107,45 84,42

Steel 117 117 108,64 93,12 73,17


22. June 2011

Uncertainties influencing deployment of CCTS

Available storage potential

• Low resolution data

• Different estimation methods

Development of the CO2 Certificate price

• CO2 Certificate price is driving force

• Price is volatile to future climate policies

Accessibility of storage sites

• Growing public resistance

• Offshore storage involves less stakeholders



22. June 2011

Selected Scenarios

ScenarioCO2 Certificate

price in 2050

Public acceptance

Total Storage potential

BAU 75 Euro Onshore & Offshore 6.6 Gt

Industry 50 Euro Onshore & Offshore 6.6 Gt

Offshore 75 Euro Offshore only 1.2 Gt

Storage 75 Euro Onshore & Offshore 11.2 Gt



22. June 2011

Scenario Results: BAU (Business as Usual)


in 2025


Industry starts at 40 €/t

Coal starts at 55 €/t

2050: 80% captured (220Mt/a)

pipeline network of 3800 km

mostly onshore sinks

38 billion € Infrastructure costs

1.5 of 6.6 Gt storage left

in 2050


22. June 2011

BAU: Costs for avoiding CO2 emissions



Industry Power Plants


22. June 2011

Scenario Results: Offshore only



in 2050 usage of all sinks

10 year delayed start

only Industry starts at 50€/t

2050: 20% captured: 54 Mt/a,

(57% of industrial emission)

Pipeline network of 2200 km


22. June 2011

Scenarios Results: Overview

ScenarioCO2 Price

in 2050

Remaining Storage

capacity in 2050 [Gt]

CO2 stored via CCTS in 2050 [Mt/a]

Industry share from 2010-2050

Pipeline length in

2050

CCTS Infrastructure Costs [bil €]

BAU 75 € 1.5 of 6.6 220 39 % 3800 km 38

Industry 50 € 5.3 of 6.6 61 100 % 1050 km 8,8

Offshore 75 € 0 of 1.2 54 100 % 2200 km 11,5

Storage 75 € 6.8 of 11.2 232 38 % 3000 km 39,7



22. June 2011

Conclusions I: Model Outcomes

• Industry first-mover, at CO2 prices of 50€/t in 2050

• Energy sector needs prices above 75€/t in 2050

• Up to 80% reduction possible for reasonable prices

• Not enough affordable storage capacities for all German emitters,

especially if only offshore storage possible

• CCTS especially for North Germany interesting

• Formation of regional clusters

• Interconnected pipeline network in the case of Offshore storage



22. June 2011

Conclusions II: General Outcomes

• High abatement potential for industrial emissions (first mover)

higher Network-Efficiency

• CCTS solution for unavoidable industrial CO2 emissions

• Combined usage of industrial and electrical sector leads to

storage scarcity (esp. in offshore case)

• Transport does matters (5% – 7% of all costs onshore, 17% offshore),

however only if the network is planned in an optimal way).

Europe-wide infrastructure planning



22. June 2011

Further Research

We are currently working on:

• Application of stochastic optimization

• Upscaling on European Level

• Integration of EOR

Thank you very much for your attention!

Are there any questions?


22. June 2011

References

GeoCapacity (2009): Assessing European Capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide – The EU GeoCapacity Project. Energy Procedia, Volume 1, Issue 1, February 2009, Pages 2663-2670.

IEA (2009): Technology Roadmap – Carbon Capture and Storage. OECD, Paris, France: International Energy Agency.

Kobos et al (2007): The 'String of Pearls': The Integrated Assessment Cost and Source-Sink Model [Conference] // 6th Annual Carbon Capture & Sequestration Conference, May 7-10 2007. - Pittsburgh, USA : Sandia National Laboratories.

Mendelevitch, R., Oei, P.Y., Tissen, A. and Herold, J. (2010): CO2- Highways – Modeling Aspects of a Future CO2 Transport Infrastructure, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Working Document No. 340; Brussels, Belgium.

Middleton R. and Bielicki J.(2009): A Comprehensive Carbon Capture and Storage Infrastructure Model [Conference] // Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies.

Oei, P.Y., Mendelevitch, R. Herold, J., Tissen, A. von Hirschhausen, C. (2010): CO2-Autobahnen für Europa? Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen (ET Magazin), Ausgabe 12/2010, ETV Energieverlag GmbH, Essen.

RECCS+ (2010): RECCS plus – Regenerative Energien (RE) im Vergleich mit CO2-Abtrennung und Ablagerung (CCS) – Update und Erweiterung der RECCS-Studie. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU).

Tzimas E. (2009): The Cost of Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration Projects in Europe, European Commission, Joint Research Center, Institute of Energy.


22. June 2011

Industrial CCTS Projects around the world

Project Country Location Capture Rate [tCO2/day]

Prosint Methanol Production Plant

Brasil Rio de Janeiro 90

Kurosaki Chemical Plant Japan Kurosaki 283

Sumitomo Chemicals Plant Japan Ichihara 150

Nippon Steel CO2 Capture Project

Japan Kimitsu 170

Petronas Gas Processing Malaysia Kuala Lumpur 160

AES Shady Point USA Panama, Oklahoma 200

AES Warrior Run USA Cumberland, Maryland 123

American Electric Power - Mountaineer

USA New Haven 274

Bellingham Cogeneration Facility

USA Bellingham 335

Total Lacq (Oxyfuel) France Lacq 205


22. June 2011

Capture Costs in Industry

Investment costs (based on Ho et al., 2010):

195 €/tCO2 for iron and steel

225 €/tCO2 for cement

325 €/tCO2 for petrochemical

Variable costs (based on Ho et al., 2010):

17 €/tCO2 for iron and steel (60% HC)

24 €/tCO2 for cement (85% HC)

33 €/tCO2 for petrochemical (115% HC)

Pipeline investment costs:

Onshore: 800.000 €/km, Offshore: 960.000 €/km for a diameter of 18`` (Alstom, 2011)

From 150.000 €/km to 1.200.000 €/km, depending on diameter (Metz et al., 2005)


22. June 2011

Capture Costs in Industry

Storage investment costs (IEA, 2005):

12.5 – 16.9 M€/MtCO2 onshore

34.5 – 44 M€/MtCO2 offshore

Art der Speicherstätte Erschöpftes Gasfeld Saline Aquifere

Onshore Offshore Onshore Offshore

Bohrtiefe (vertikal + horizontal) [m] 3 000 4 000 3 000 4 000

Max. Injektionsrate gemäß IEA [Mt CO2/Jahr] 1,25 1,25 1 1

Max. Injektionsrate gemäß Gerling [Mt

CO2/Jahr]0,42 0,42 0,33 0,33

Kapitalkosten pro Bohrung [M€] 5,62 14,50 5,62 14,50

Betriebs-, Wartungs- und Monitoringkosten [%] 7 8 7 8

[1] Solch optimistische Einspeiseraten wie von der IEA angenommen treffen nur auf sehr wenige Speicherorte zu. Die durchschnittliche für Europa zu erwartende Injektionsrate liegt bei ungefähr 0,33 Millionen Tonnen pro Jahr. (vgl. Gerling, 2010) In Anlehnung an diese Aussage wird für das CCTSMOD mit einer dreimal geringeren als von der IEA (2005) angegebenen Einspeiserate gerechnet.


22. June 2011

Scenario Results: Industry only (on- & offshore)




22. June 2011

Costs for avoiding Industrial CO2 emissions




22. June 2011

BAU: Costs for avoiding CO2 emissions




22. June 2011

Data: Costs for Reference and CCTS Power Plant

Source: Tzimas (2009), and Öko Institut (2011)

TechnologieInvestitionskosten

Demonstrationsprojekt in €08/kWEffizienz in %

Kohlestaubfeuerung 1478 46

Kohlestaubfeuerung mitPost-Combustion Abscheidung

2500 35

Integrated GasificationCombined Cycle (IGCC) mitCO2 Abscheidung

2700 35

Oxyfuel Carbon Capture 2900 35

Erdgas GUD Kraftwerk mit Post-Combustion Abscheidung

1300 46

Zementherstellung mit Post-Combustion Abscheidung

ca. 87% der Investitionskosten im Kraftwerksbereich

-

Kalkherstellung mit Post-Combustion Abscheidung

ca. 127 % der Investitionskosten im Kraftwerksbereich

-

Eisen- und Stahlherstellung mit Post-Combustion Abscheidung

ca. 61 % der Investitionskosten im Kraftwerksbereich

-


22. June 2011

, , , , , ,

___

1min _· _ _ · _

· · _ · _ _

1

· _

Pa Pa ija

ijda ija

a

Pa

Sa

P Pa

year start

Pa Painv x z

aPa a

x planinv f f y

ij i

Pinv

ja d ijdd

h c c ccs x cinv x inv x

E L c plan pla

ert

n c inv f i

z

v f

r

n

_ ·

_ _ · _

ija

Sa

i j

SaS

c

c f f

inv y inv y

Mathematical Problem: Objective Function


22. June 2011

Mathematical Problem: Constraints

Minimization Problem

, , , ,, , ,

__ _

· 5 _ · _ _ · _

1min

1

_ ·

5 _ _ _ · _ 5

·

Pa Pa ija

ijda i

a

Pa

Sa Saja

Pa Pa

ij ija d ijd ij

x fin

year start

x inv zainv y

P Pa

v f pl

a

ai j d

a

PP

n y

ac ccs x c inv x inv x cert

E c f f c inv f inv f c plan pla

z

hr

n

_ _ · _ Sa SaS

c inv y inv y

(1)

Subject to

2a a ap p pCx Oz (2)

_Pa Pbb a

inv xx

(3)

_ · _ _ · _ijdb jidbb a

ija d dd db a

cap d inv f cap d if nv f

(4)

_ _ ·ijda ijbd b a

inv f pmax ipe plan

(5)

5· _S aa

Sy cap stor (6)

_Sab a

Sby yinv

(7)

_ · _ · 0Sj Sija jia Pj Pai

ai P S

f f match P x match S y (8)

, , _, 0_ , ,Pa SPa Pa i aja Sax fx inv z y yinv (9)

0,1ijaplan (10)

0_ ijdainv f N (11)

Subject to:


22. June 2011

Mathematical Problem: Indices, Parameters and Variables

Variables

h – net present value of total CO2 abatement costs

over the whole model time frame [€]

Pax – quantity of CO2 captured by producer P

in period a [t CO2/a]

_ Painv x – investment in additional CO2 capture capacity for

producer P in period a [1]

Paz – quantity of CO2 emitted into atmosphere by

producer P in period a [t CO2/a]

ijaf – CO2 flow from node i to j in period a [t CO2/a]

_ ijdainv f – investment in additional pipeline capacity with

diameter d connecting nodes i and j in period a [1]

ijaplan – pipeline planning and development between nodes

i and j in period a [1]

Say – quantity of CO2 stored per year in sink S in period a [t CO2/a]

Indices

a , b – model period

P – individual CO2 producer

S – individual CO2 storage site

i , j – node

d – pipeline diameter [m]

Parameters

r – rate of interest [%]

ayear – starting year of a model period a

start – starting year of the model

end – ending year of the model

_ Pac ccs – variable costs of carbon capture for producer P in period a [€/t CO2]

_ _ Pc inv x – investment costs of carbon capture for producer P [€/kw]

2ap

CO – total quantity of CO2 produced by producer P in period a [t CO2]

acert – CO2 Certificate price in period a [€/ t CO2]

_c f – CO2 flow costs [t CO2]

_ _ dc inv f – pipeline investment costs [€/km·m (diameter)]

_c plan – pipeline planning and development costs [€/km]

_ dcap d – capacity of a pipeline with diameter d [t CO2/a]

_max pipe – max. number of pipelines built along planned route [1]

_ _ Sainv yc – investment costs for storage in sink S in period a [€/t CO2]

_ Scap stor – storage capacity of sink S [t CO2]

_ Pjmatch P – mapping of producer P to node j

_ Sjmatch S – mapping of Sink S to node j

ijE – adjacent matrix of possible connections between nodes i and j


22. June 2011

Data: CO2 Sources and Potential Storage Sites

• Point sources are often

agglomerated

• Large point sources are

mainly power plants

• Main storage potential in

Northern Germany and North

Sea Region

• Potential storage sites and

CO2 sources are spatially

divided in most cases

Source: Own illustration according to data from EEA and GeoCapacity

Power Plant

Industrial Facility

Offshore Saline Aquifere

Onshore Saline Aquifere

Depleted Gasfield



22. June 2011

BAU for Europe in the year 2050

• CCTS only an option for countries with a regional proximity between CO2 intensive regions and storage sites.

• Domination of point to point connections – no interconnected transnational network

• Industry is first mover

Source: Own illustration based on model results

Power plant

Industrial facility

CO2 storage site

Pipeline capacity

CO2 flow


22. June 2011

Off 120 for Europe in the year 2050

• Interconnected European CCTS infrastructure.

• Central and Eastern Europe is not connected to the network

• Immense infrastructure investments only lucrative for integration of CO2 capture from power generation.

Source: Own illustration based on model results

Power plant

Industrial facility

CO2 storage site

Pipeline capacity

CO2 flow


22. June 2011

Documents

- 1 - Technische Universität Berlin Fachgebiet Wirtschafts- und InfrastrukturPolitik (WIP) 22. June 2011 Modeling a Carbon Capture, Transport and Storage