Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (17) (remove)
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Conference Object (8)
- Peer-Reviewed Article (4)
- Part of a Book (3)
- Contribution to Periodical (1)
- Habilitation (1)
Language
- English (17) (remove)
Division
- Zukünftige Energie- und Industriesysteme (17) (remove)
Recent trends in the German CCS debate : new players, arguments and legal framework conditions
(2010)
This study provides insight into the feasibility of a CO2 trunkline from the Netherlands to the Utsira formation in the Norwegian part of the North Sea, which is a large geological storage reservoir for CO2. The feasibility is investigated in competition with CO2 storage in onshore and near-offshore sinks in the Netherlands. Least-cost modelling with a MARKAL model in combination with ArcGIS was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the trunkline as part of aDutch greenhouse gas emission reduction strategy for the Dutch electricity sector and CO2 intensive industry. The results show that under the condition that a CO2 permit price increases from €25 per tCO2 in 2010 to €60 per tCO2 in 2030, and remains at this level up to 2050, CO2 emissions in the Netherlands could reduce with 67% in 2050 compared to 1990, and investment in the Utsira trunkline may be cost-effective from 2020–2030 provided that Belgian and German CO2 is transported and stored via the Netherlands as well. In this case, by 2050 more than 2.1 GtCO2 would have been transported from the Netherlands to the Utsira formation. However, if the Utsira trunkline is not used for transportation of CO2 from Belgium and Germany, it may become cost-effective 10 years later, and less than 1.3 GtCO2 from the Netherlands would have been stored in the Utsiraformation by 2050. On the short term, CO2 storage in Dutch fields appears more cost-effective than in the Utsira formation, but as yet there are major uncertainties related to the timing and effective exploitation of the Dutch offshore storage opportunities.
In the Paris Accord to the UN Climate Change Conference COP21 in 2015, the international community agreed to "make every effort" to reach a significant reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to limit global average temperature rise to preferably 1.5°C by 2100 (UNFCC 2018). A transition to a climate-friendly energy supply, however, would come largely at the expense of coal - a fossil fuel with large global reserves that are also widely dispersed regionally. Therefore, especially since the turn of the millennium, the question has been raised as to how coal could be used in a climate-friendly way in the future. So far, the only way to do this is to apply CCS technology or CCU. CCS involves the capture of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants or industrial sources and its storage underground, such as in deep saline aquifers or in depleted oil and natural gas fields, or their use for enhanced oil or gas recovery (EOR/EGR). When carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) is applied, the CO2 is further used, for example as feedstock for the production of durable plastics. Due to the relatively low potential of CCU compared to CCS (IPCC 2005), only CCS is considered in this thesis.
The majority of studies and roadmaps have discussed CCS as a technology option that could make a significant contribution to achieving the objective of decreasing GHG emissions for many years (IPCC 2014a, 2018). Particularly in the power sector, however, these expectations have not yet been met. As of November 2019, worldwide only two small base-load power plants, capturing a total of 2.4 Mt CO2/year and mainly using it for EOR, are in operation, together with a few pilots in industrial applications and, in particular, natural gas processing (in total 30 Mt CO2/year) (Global CCS Institute 2019).
Early on, it became clear that the predicted high deployment targets and their underlying studies should be critically questioned for various reasons. Particularly due to the lack of a systems-analytical evaluation of this technology (which was relatively new at the time), no reliable answers could be given about the ecological, economic, social and structural effects of its large-scale application. Such analyses are, however, a pre-condition for comprehensively classifying the contribution of a new technology as a promising option for a sustainable energy supply system and assessing it in comparison to other technologies.
To address these challenges, several studies, most of which initiated by the author, were conducted on this topic between 2004 and 2018. The resulting papers became the basis for this thesis.
For parabolic trough power plants using synthetic oil as the heat transfer medium, the application of solid media sensible heat storage is an attractive option in terms of investment and maintenance costs. One important aspect in storage development is the storage integration into the power plant. A modular operation concept for thermal storage systems was previously suggested by DLR, showing an increase in storage capacity of more than 100 %. However, in these investigations, the additional costs needed to implement this storage concept into the power plant, like for extra piping, valves, pumps and control had not been considered. These aspects are discussed in this paper, showing a decrease of levelized energy costs with modular storage integration of 2 to 3 %. In a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) a comparison of an AndaSol-I type solar thermal power plant [1] with the original two-tank molten salt storage and with a "hypothetical" concrete storage shows an advantage of the concrete storage technology concerning environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the “hypothetical” concrete based AndaSol-I decrease by 7 %, considering 1 kWh of solar electricity delivered to the grid. Regarding only the production of the power plant, the emissions decrease by 9.5 %.
One of the factors decelerating a further diffusion of the carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is the public's negative perception of early pilot or demonstration activities in Germany as well as in other countries. This study examined the public perception of CCS in more detail by looking into different options within the CCS chain, i.e. for the three elements capture, transport and storage. This was analyzed using an experimental approach, realized in an online survey with a representative German sample of 1830 citizens. Each participant evaluated one of 18 different CCS scenarios created using three types of CO2 source (industry, biomass, coal), two transport options (pipeline vs. no specification), and three storage possibilities (saline aquifer, depleted gas field, enhanced gas recovery (EGR)).
Overall, we found that the ratings of CCS were neutral on average. However, if the CO2 is produced by a biomass power plant or industry, CCS is rated more positively than in a scenario with a coal-fired power plant. The specifications of transport and storage interacted with each other such that scenarios including EGR or a depleted gas field without mentioning a pipeline were evaluated better than storing it in a saline aquifer or a depleted gas field and mentioning a pipeline as means of transport. Exploratory regression analyses indicate the high relevance of the respective CO2 source in general as well as the perceived importance of this source for Germany.
For the option of “carbon capture and storage”, an integrated assessment in the form of a life cycle analysis and a cost assessment combined with a systematic comparison with renewable energies regarding future conditions in the power plant market for the situation in Germany is done. The calculations along the whole process chain show that CCS technologies emit per kWh more than generally assumed in clean-coal concepts (total CO2 reduction by 72-90% and total greenhouse gas reduction by 65-79%) and considerable more if compared with renewable electricity. Nevertheless, CCS could lead to a significant absolute reduction of GHG-emissions within the electricity supply system. Furthermore, depending on the growth rates and the market development, renewables could develop faster and could be in the long term cheaper than CCS based plants. Especially, in Germany, CCS as a climate protection option is phasing a specific problem as a huge amount of fossil power plant has to be substituted in the next 15 years where CCS technologies might be not yet available. For a considerable contribution of CCS to climate protection, the energy structure in Germany requires the integration of capture ready plants into the current renewal programs. If CCS retrofit technologies could be applied at least from 2020, this would strongly decrease the expected CO2 emissions and would give a chance to reach the climate protection goal of minus 80% including the renewed fossil-fired power plants.