Benchmarking LCA studies for fossil fuel based power generation value chains
Life Cycle Costing in CO2 storage
Anna Korre, Zhenggang Nie, Rajesh Govindan, Ji Quan Shi, Sevket DurucanMinerals, Energy and Environmental Engineering Research GroupDepartment of Earth Science and EngineeringRoyal School of MinesPrince Consort RoadLondon, SW7 2AZ
Benchmarking LCA studies for fossil fuel based power generation
value chains
© Imperial College London Page 3
Natural resources Emissions to air, water and soil
Electricity and by-products
Power Generation with CO2 Capture
Extraction of fossil fuel
Consumables Production
Raw Material Production
Upstream processes
infrastructure
Power plant and CO2 capture facility
infrastructure
CO2 injection infrastructure
CO2 pipeline infrastructure
CO2 Conditioning
CO2 Transportation
CO2 Storage
Processing of fossil fuel
Fossil fuel transportation
Consumables transportation
Imperial College’s LCA model (ICLCA) of fossil fuel production, transport, power generation value chains
LCA model of the natural gas supply chain and power generation options
Page 4
CCGT
CCGT + MEA
ATR with PSA
SMR + Membrane
Offshore natural gas production
Receiving terminal at South Hook +
onshore gas pipeline to power plant
Alternative gas power generation with/without CO2 capture
CO2 pipeline transportation
CO2 injection into saline aquifer
LNG shipping (Q‐Max & Q‐Flex) to the UK via Suez
Gas processing and LNG plant
Qatar North Field offshore production(1,730 MMscf/day) → undersea pipeline (80 km)→ Gas processing and LNG plant at Ras Laffan (2×7.8MTPA) → LNG shipping (Q‐Max & Q‐Flex): from Qatar to the UK via Suez Canal (11,281 km) → Receiving terminal at South Hook (2×7.8MTPA) → onshore gas pipeline to power plant (100km) → Alternative Gas power generation with/without CO2 capture → CO2 pipeline transportation (300km) → CO2 injection into saline aquifer (161t/hr)
Case study: full chain analysis of Middle East natural gas to a UK power plant without/with CCS
© Imperial College London Page 6
0.00E+00
5.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.50E+08
2.00E+08
Predrilling andwell testing
Offshore NGplatform
constructin &installation
Offshorepipeline
construction &commissioning
Onshore NGprocessing
plant
Onshorepipeline
construction
LNG plantconstruction
LNG receivingterminal
construction
1.36E+07
1.89E+08
2.35E+07
9.03E+057.91E+04
7.78E+07
4.52E+06
GHG emissions from construction (kg CO2‐e)
0.00E+00
1.00E+09
2.00E+09
3.00E+09
4.00E+09
5.00E+09
6.00E+09
year1
year2
year3
year4
year5
year6
year7
year8
year9
year10
year11
year12
year13
year14
year15
year16
year17
year18
year19
year20
Gas supply chain operation life cycle GHG emissions (kg CO2‐e)LNG receiving terminal
LNG shipping
LNG plant
Onshore pipeline
Onshore processing plant
GHG emissions from the gas supply chain
Case study: full chain analysis of Middle East natural gas to a UK power plant without/with CCS
© Imperial College London Page 7
0 100 200 300 400
CCGT
CCGT+MEA capture
SMR+Membrane
ATR+PSA
kg CO2‐e/MWh
Predrilling and well testing
Offshore NG platform constructin & installation
Onshore NG processing plant
Onshore pipeline construction
LNG plant construction
LNG receiving terminal construction
Offshore NG production platform
Onshore processing plant
Onshore pipeline
LNG plant operation
LNG shipping
LNG receiving terminal
Power plant
CO2 transportation
CO2 injection
Life cycle of GHG emissions for alternative power plant configurations with gas supplied from Middle East
Case study: full chain analysis of Middle East natural gas to a UK power plant without/with CCS
Comparison of GHG emissions for different gas supply options to the UK market
© Imperial College London Page 8
© Imperial College London Page 9
Comparison of GHG emissions for different natural gas power generation value chains around the world
and with CCS implementation
Comparison of GHG emissions for alternative coal and natural gas fired power plant configurations
© Imperial College London Page 10
© Imperial College London Page 11
0.Coal_wo_CCS_lit
1.Coal_wo_CCS IC
2.Coal_w_CCS_lit
3.Coal POST IC
4.Coal OXY IC
5.Gas_wo_CCS_lit
6.Gas CCGT IC
7.Gas_w_CCS_lit
8.Gas MEA IC
9.Gas ATR IC
9.Gas SMR IC
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
N=186
N=15
N=28
N=15
N=15
N=95
N=16
N=25
N=16
N=16
N=16
N:Sample Size
Greehouse Gas Emissions (gCO2e/kWh)
Comparison of GHG emissions for alternative coal and natural gas fired power plant configurations
IC : Imperial College modellit: literature studies
Life Cycle Costing in CO2 storage
© Imperial College London Page 12
Key drivers of the CO2 storage cost uncertainty
Life Cycle CO2 storage cost model
© Imperial College London Page 13
Life Cycle CO2 storage cost model
© Imperial College London Page 14
Basis of the methodology
individual geological formations
and their characteristics can be
assessed on the basis of their
depositional and tectonic
setting
recent reservoir/site history
including hydrocarbon
exploration and/or production
data can be used to produce
key performance metrics for
operability and efficiency of a
CO2 storage site.
Injection and storage model
© Imperial College LondonPage 15
Map of UKCS showing location of the generic storage sites considered
Rotliegend depleted gas field
Bunter Sst. depleted gas field/saline aquifer
Captain Sst. saline aquifer
Cenozoicsubmarine fan sandstone saline aquifer
© Imperial College London Page 15
Approach
Identification and selection of set
of generic CO2 subsurface storage
sites
Data gathering
Injection and storage modelSNS Rotliegend group
SPBA Petroleum Geological Atlas (2010)
Rotliegend reservoir facies distribution
© Imperial College London
© Imperial College London Page 16
Approach
Identification and selection of set
of generic CO2 subsurface storage
sites
Data gathering
Injection and storage modelSNS Rotliegend group
SPBA Petroleum Geological Atlas (2010)
Rotliegend reservoir facies distribution
Ravenspurndepleted gasfield
© Imperial College London Page 17
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 5 10 15 20 25
Pro
duc
tion
rate
(mill
ion
scm
/day
)
No of years
Reported
Simulated (Scaled porosity,low perm 1, S=0)
Simulated (Scaled porosity, low perm 1, S = -5.0)
Simulated (Scaled porosity, Low perm 2, S=0)
Simulated (Scaled porosity, Low perm 2, S =-5.0)
Injection and storage modelSNS Rotliegend group
Low permeability 2
low permeability 1
Turner et al., 1993
Ravenspurn North and South depleted gas fields
Approach
Identification and selection of set
of generic CO2 subsurface storage
sites
Data gathering
Building of 3D model for each site
BGS/IC iteration finalising each
model’s parameter attributions and
constructing dynamic models
Running and validating dynamic
models for each 3D model
© Imperial College London Page 18
Injection and storage model Dynamic modellingSNS Rotliegend group
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 10 20 30 40
CO
2in
ject
ion
rate
(M
t/yea
r)
Years since start of CO2 injection
Well 4326-34326-64326-14230-D74230-D10
Aggregate
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 10 20 30 40
CO
2in
ject
ion
rate
(M
t/yea
r)
Years since start of CO2 injection
5 Mt/year
4
3
2
1
CO2 injection rate, Mt/year
1 2 3 4 5
PSI, year 50 24 14 7.5 5.1
FCU, fraction 0.38 0.36 0.32 0.23 0.19
Determination of key performance indicators for the Ravenspurn fields
Period of Sustained Injection (PSI)
The duration wherein a pre-specified constant injection
rate can be maintained
Fraction of Capacity Utilised (FCU)
The fraction of available pore space within the reservoir
occupied by CO2
© Imperial College London Page 19
Life Cycle CO2 storage cost model
© Imperial College London Page 20
Implementation of the cost model for the Goldeneye CO2 storage anchor case
Units Value
Injection rate per year Mt/year 2.0*
Storage facility injection life Years 11
Total CO2 injected M tonnes 20
Area of review (monitoring area during injection)
Km2 160
CO2 storage financial responsibility
£/tonne CO2 0.417
Number of injection wells - 4
Modified injection platform - 1
Water production well - 0
Water production rate Mt / Mt CO2 injected 0
* For the 10th and 11th year, CO2 injection rates are 1.5 and 0.5 respectively
Key parameters used (Scottish Power FEED report)
© Imperial College London Page 21
The life cycle cash flow of CO2 storage at Goldeneye
Levelised CO2 storage cost is calculated as £20.32 per tonne of CO2
stored© Imperial College London Page 22
The life cycle cash flow of CO2 storage at Goldeneye
Sensitivity analysis of CO2 storage costs
© Imperial College London Page 23
Combined CO2 storage and transport life cycle cost analysis for the Goldeneye anchor case
Sensitivity analysis of CO2 storage and transport costs for each scenario
storage transport
© Imperial College London Page 24
CO2 storage at a North Sea saline aquifer
Levelised CO2 storage cost £7.02 per tonne of CO2 stored (400MT, 30 year operation)
© Imperial College London Page 25
Cash flow of a CCS value chain
Central North Sea multi-store CO2
transport and geological storage network optimisation
CO2 storage sites selected for the multi-store scenario analysis
Sources
Installation Source typeVerified CO2 emissions
2011 (kg/year)CO2 emission
(Mt)
Peterhead Power Station CCGT plant 2,482,116 2.48
Longannet Power Station Coal 9,124,587 9.12
Grangemouth Refinery Refinery 1,487,237 1.49
Cockenzie Power Station Coal 3,945,259 3.95
Lynemouth Power Station Coal & biomass 2,551,364 2.55
P© Imperial College London
CO2 storage sites selected for the multi-store scenario analysis
Sinks
Description Site availabilityLeasing area
storage capacity (Mt CO2)
Max injection rate (Mt CO2/year)
Britannia aquifer block now 22.98 2
Captain aquifer block 17 now 16.98 2Captain aquifer block 18 now 11.24 2Goldeneye gas condensate field
since 2011 20.00 2
Blake oil field after 2015 28.00 2
Scapa oil field after 2020 48.32 4Britannia condensate field after 2025 130.20 6
© Imperial College London Page 28
Transport and storage system evolution
Amount of CO2 captured during each time period
CO2 stored at time t in Mt/yearT1
2014-2017
T2
2018-2022
T3
2023-2027
T4
2028-2038
T5
2039-2050
Length of time period (years) 4 5 5 11 12
Britannia aquifer 2.00 2.00 0.99
Captain block 17 2.00 1.80
Captain block 18 2.00 0.65
Goldeneye Gas Condensate Field 2.00 1.185 1.22
Blake Oil Field 2.00 2.00 0.73
Scapa Oil Field 4.00 2.58
Britannia Condensate Field 6.00 5.35
Annual total (Mt) 8.00 7.36 8.12 9.30 5.35
CO2 injected during the period (Mt) 32.00 38.15 41.06 102.32 64.2
Total CO2 stored during 2014-2050 277.73
© Imperial College London Page 29
Time period 1: 2014‐2018Storage sites used: Britannia/Saline AquiferCaptain 17Captain 18Goldeneye
Time period 2: 2018‐2023Storage sites used:Britannia/Saline AquiferCaptain 17Captain 18GoldeneyeBlake/Oil
Time period 3: 2023‐2028Storage sites used:Britannia/Saline AquiferScapaBlake/OilCaptain 18Goldeneye
Time period 4: 2028‐2039Storage sites used:Britannia/CondensateScapaBlake oil field
Time period 5: 2039‐2050Storage sites used:
Britannia/Condensate
Transport and storage system evolution
© Imperial College London Page 30
Life cycle cash flow for individual storage sites
Full utilisation of the optimal CNS multi-store capacity for a fixed CO2 price (£25)
Cash flow per storage site during the planning horizon (2011 to 2050)© Imperial College London Page 31
© Imperial College London Page 32
Many thanks to our sponsors
Further information:
Prof. Anna KorreImperial College LondonDepartment of Earth Science and EngineeringRoyal School of Mines, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2AZ, UKTel.: +44 (0)20 759 47372
© Imperial College London Page 33
Life Cycle Cost - points for discussion
Which are the types of questions we may aim to
answer through life cycle costing
Advantages, weaknesses of streamlined / high level
and detailed LCC studies
Do we understand the importance of input data
uncertainty and variability in LCC results
How does this relate to LCC modelling uncertainty
for different applications