Benchmarking LCA Studies for Fossil Fuel Based Power Generation Value Chains

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 Durucan Minerals, Energy and Environmental Engineering Research Group Department of Earth Science and Engineering Royal School of Mines Prince Consort Road London, SW7 2AZ

Benchmarking LCA studies for fossil fuel based power generation value chains Imperial College’s LCA model (ICLCA) of fossil fuel production, transport, power generation value chains

Emissions to air, Electricity and Natural resources water and soil by-products

Extraction of Power Generation fossil fuel with CO2 Capture

Processing of Fossil fuel

fossil fuel transportation CO2 Conditioning

Consumables Production Consumables CO2 Transportation transportation Raw Material Production CO2 Storage

Upstream Power plant and CO pipeline CO injection processes CO capture facility 2 2 2 infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure

LCA model of the natural gas supply chain and power generation options

Page 4 Case study: full chain analysis of Middle East Alternative gas power generation with/without CO capture natural gas to a UK power plant without/with CCS 2 CCGT Receiving terminal at Offshore natural gas Gas processing LNG shipping (Q‐Max South Hook + production and LNG plant & Q‐Flex) to the UK via onshore gas pipeline Suez to power plant

CCGT + MEA

ATR with PSA

CO2 injection into CO2 pipeline saline aquifer transportation SMR + Membrane

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

GHG emissions from the gas supply chain

GHG emissions from construction (kg CO2‐e) 1.89E+08 2.00E+08 2.35E+07 1.50E+08 7.78E+07 1.00E+08 1.36E+07 7.91E+04 4.52E+06 5.00E+07 9.03E+05 0.00E+00 Predrilling and Offshore NG Offshore Onshore NG Onshore LNG plant LNG receiving well testing platform pipeline processing pipeline construction terminal constructin & construction & plant construction construction installation commissioning

Gas supply chain operation life cycle GHG emissions (kg CO2‐e) LNG receiving terminal 6.00E+09 5.00E+09 LNG shipping 4.00E+09 3.00E+09 LNG plant 2.00E+09 Onshore pipeline 1.00E+09 0.00E+00 Onshore processing plant year year year year year year year year year year year year year year year year year year year year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Life cycle of GHG emissions for alternative power plant configurations with gas supplied from Middle East

Predrilling and well testing

Offshore NG platform constructin & installation

Onshore NG processing plant ATR+PSA Onshore pipeline construction

LNG plant construction

LNG receiving terminal construction SMR+Membrane Offshore NG production platform

Onshore processing plant

CCGT+MEA capture Onshore pipeline LNG plant operation

LNG shipping

CCGT LNG receiving terminal Power plant

0 100 200 300 400 CO2 transportation kg CO2‐e/MWh CO2 injection

Comparison of GHG emissions for different gas supply options to the UK market

and with CCS implementation

Comparison of GHG emissions for alternative coal and natural gas fired power plant configurations

Greehouse Gas Emissions (gCO2e/kWh) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

9.Gas SMR IC N=16

9.Gas ATR IC N=16

8.Gas MEA IC N=16

7.Gas_w_CCS_lit N=25

6.Gas CCGT IC N=16

5.Gas_wo_CCS_lit N=95

4.Coal OXY IC N=15

3.Coal POST IC N=15

2.Coal_w_CCS_lit N=28

1.Coal_wo_CCS IC N=15

0.Coal_wo_CCS_lit N=186

IC : Imperial College model N:Sample Size lit: literature studies

Life Cycle Costing in CO2 storage

Key drivers of the CO2 storage cost uncertainty

Life Cycle CO2 storage cost model

© Imperial College London Page 14 Map of UKCS showing location of Injection and storage the generic storage sites considered model Cenozoic submarine fan Basis of the methodology sandstone saline  individual geological formations Captain Sst. aquifer saline aquifer and their characteristics can be assessed on the basis of their depositional and tectonic setting Bunter Sst. depleted  recent reservoir/site history gas Rotliegend field/saline including hydrocarbon depleted gas aquifer field exploration and/or production data can be used to produce key performance metrics for operability and efficiency of a

CO2 storage site. Page 15 © Imperial College London

Injection and storage model Rotliegend reservoir facies distribution SNS Rotliegend group Approach  Identification and selection of set

of generic CO2 subsurface storage sites

 Data gathering SPBA Petroleum Geological Atlas (2010)

of generic CO2 subsurface storage sites

 Data gathering SPBA Petroleum Geological Atlas (2010)

Injection and storage model 8 Reported Simulated (Scaled porosity,low perm 1, S=0) 7 SNS Rotliegend group Simulated (Scaled porosity, low perm 1, S = -5.0) Simulated (Scaled porosity, Low perm 2, S=0) 6 Approach Simulated (Scaled porosity, Low perm 2, S =-5.0) 5  Identification and selection of set 4

of generic CO2 subsurface storage 3 sites 2

Production rate (million (million scm/day)Production rate 1  Data gathering 0  Building of 3D model for each site 0 5 10 15 20 25 No of years  BGS/IC iteration finalising each model’s parameter attributions and constructing dynamic models Low permeability 2  Running and validating dynamic low permeability 1 models for each 3D model Turner et al., 1993

Ravenspurn North and South depleted gas fields

Period of Sustained Injection (PSI) 1 2345 The duration wherein a pre-specified constant injection rate can be maintained PSI, year 50 24 14 7.5 5.1 Fraction of Capacity Utilised (FCU) FCU, fraction 0.38 0.36 0.32 0.23 0.19 The fraction of available pore space within the reservoir

occupied by CO2 3.5 6 Well 4326-3 3 4326-6 5 Mt/year 4326-1 5 2.5 4230-D7 4 4230-D10 4 2 Aggregate 3 3 1.5

injection rate (Mt/year) 2

1 2 2 1 CO 0.5 CO 1

0 0 0 102030400 10203040 Years since start of CO2 injection Years since start of CO2 injection © Imperial College London Page 19

Life Cycle CO2 storage cost model

Goldeneye CO2 storage anchor case

Key parameters used (Scottish Power FEED report) 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 Km2 160 area during injection) CO storage financial 2 £/tonne CO 0.417 responsibility 2 Number of injection wells - 4 Modified injection platform - 1 Water production well - 0

Water production rate Mt / Mt CO2 injected 0

th th * For the 10 and 11 year, CO2 injection rates are 1.5 and 0.5 respectively © 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

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

Levelised CO2 storage cost £7.02 per tonne of CO2 stored (400MT, 30 year operation)

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

Verified CO emissions CO emission Installation Source type 2 2 2011 (kg/year) (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

CO2 storage sites selected for the multi-store scenario analysis

Sinks

Leasing area Max injection rate Description Site availability storage capacity (Mt (Mt CO2/year) CO2) Britannia aquifer block now 22.98 2 Captain aquifer block 17 now 16.98 2 Captain aquifer block 18 now 11.24 2 Goldeneye gas condensate since 2011 20.00 2 field Blake oil field after 2015 28.00 2 Scapa oil field after 2020 48.32 4 Britannia 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

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 CO stored at time t in Mt/year 2 2014-2017 2018-2022 2023-2027 2028-2038 2039-2050

Length of time period (years) 4551112 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 32.00 38.15 41.06 102.32 64.2 CO2 injected during the period (Mt)

Total CO2 stored during 2014-2050 277.73

Transport and storage system evolution

Time period 1: 2014‐2018 Time period 2: 2018‐2023 Time period 3: 2023‐2028 Storage sites used: Storage sites used: Storage sites used: Britannia/Saline Aquifer Britannia/Saline Aquifer Britannia/Saline Aquifer Captain 17 Captain 17 Scapa Captain 18 Captain 18 Blake/Oil Goldeneye Goldeneye Captain 18 Blake/Oil Goldeneye

Time period 4: 2028‐2039 Time period 5: 2039‐2050 Storage sites used: Storage sites used: Britannia/Condensate Britannia/Condensate Scapa Blake oil field

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)

Many thanks to our sponsors

Further information:

Prof. Anna Korre Imperial College London Department of Earth Science and Engineering Royal School of Mines, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2AZ, UK Tel.: +44 (0)20 759 47372 [email protected] © Imperial College London Page 32 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