Poster: NEGATIVE EMISSIONS IN ENERGY TRANSITION – THE CASE OF GEOLOGICAL CARBON STORAGE
1
NEGATIVE EMISSIONS IN ENERGY TRANSITION – THE CASE OF GEOLOGICAL CARBON STORAGE Audrey LaudeDepezay (Laboratoire REGARDS, Université de Reims ChampagneArdenne), Xavier Galiègue (Laboratoire d’Economie d’Orléans, Université d’Orléans) Contact : Audrey LaudeDepezay [email protected] Xavier Galiègue [email protected] Acknowledgments : The CO 2 DISSOLVED coordinated by the BRGM, is funded by the French NaTonal Research Agency (ANR) Web site: hVp://co2dissolved.brgm.fr Nega7ve emissions role for bending CO 2 world emissions curve • «NegaTve emissions» means that more GHG emissions are avoided than emiVed during a producTon process. • It results in a net storage of CO 2 , not only a reducTon. • NegaTve emissions could help reducing GHG already emiVed in the atmosphere. • It could be a soluTon to recTfy the GHG emissions path, regarding different emissions scenarios. Key messages The industrial plant emits CO 2 that is compressed with cold brine (moderately/ highly salted water) into the “injecTon well” where it is enTrely dissolved into brine before reaching the targeted underground storing reservoir (aquifer). The injected brine was first pumped out from the same aquifer via the “producTon well” so that water circulates in a closed loop between the two wells. Before being reinjected, the thermal energy contained in the extracted brine is recovered at the surface trough a heat exchanger system. This thermal energy is then used to feed a local heat network and/or to partly supply the own energy needs of the industrial emiVer. MLP analyses transiTon as a mutaTon process : • from one sociotechnical regime to another, • under the pressure of macrolevel forces (the landscape), • and the emergence of market niches / innovaTons that could provide the basis of the new regime . Adjacent figure coming from : Fuss et al. (2014). Beeng on negaTve emissions. Nature Climate Change, vol 4. From Kervevan et al. (2014) Adapted from Geels and Shot (2007) Nega7ve emissions could be achieved with BECCS (BioEnergy and Carbon Capture & Storage) + +/ a) b) c) d) = SchemaTc design of the carbon flows associated to the producTon of energy from fossil fuels (a), fossil fuel with carbon storage (CCS) (b), bioenergy ( c) et Bioenergy coupled with carbon storage, BECCS (d). CCS synergy with renewables : Which role in energy transi7on? A Mul7Level Transi7on Perspec7ve (MLP) CCS is perceived as a niche coming from the current regime (Geels, 2014) It helps to pursue fossil fuel use It could be an example of resistance to change of inner actors Risk of actors understatement of CCS uncertainTes (Arranz, 2015) CCS on fossil fuels could slow down the energy transi7on in : 1 – Reinforcing carbon lockin : • CCS is costly as it generates high capital costs in equipment and infrastructure (e.g. Pipelines Networks), mostly sunk. • Higher OperaTng Costs through a rise of Demand for electricity required by the process (energy penalty). • So Neither firms nor governments cannot go back easily to their decision to implement CCS 2 Diver7ng resources from renewable energies • Subsidizing CCS could reduce financial incenPves to renewables energy • CCS could be a signal that fossil fuels use will go on, reducing investment in renewables Case 1 : CCS on fossil fuels CO 2 DISSOLVED technology: Improving CCS and BECCS with Geothermal Energy …..which needs to match geothermal resources with small CO 2 emiYers A Synergy between CCS and geothermal energy ImplemenTng CO2 DISSOLVED Technology on a large scale will require to match small CO2 sources and geothermal sources. Two promising areas have been idenTfied in France. Nega7ve Emissions, Energy transi7on and BECCS General modeling of MLP . CCS in MLP • Here « Landscape » is climate change, but economic crisis or world energy demand increase also contribute to it. • The sociotechnical régime is the current energy system, based on centralized energy producTon, using fossil fuels and nuclear energy. • The innovaTons are renewable energies that could compete or be used in synergy with CCS Case 2 : CCS and bioenergy (BECCS) • BECCS reduces the risk of carbon lockin (Vergragt et al, 2011) • Thanks to nega7ve emissions, BECCS could reduce GHG already emiYed But : • Bioenergies could generate deep landuse changes and a loss of biodiversity • Matching between bioenergies, demand locaTon and CCS storage could reduce the technological potenTal • And : CCS needs large scale effects and is not welladapted for small or medium emiYers, as bioenergy emiYers are o\en. Advantages of CO 2 DISSOLVED Designed for small emiVers Reduced energy penalty Increased safety of storage Weak contribuTon to carbon lockin Poten7al Matching in France • NegaTve emissions could be provided by BECCS (Bioenergy and CCS) • But, Bioenergy emiVers are oken smaller than fossil fuels emiVers, as coalfired plant, while CCS needs big scale effects. • CO 2 DISSOLVED is a soluTon for small and medium emiVers (CA< 150000T/yr) • Despite addiTonal constraints on geological characterisTc of the storage site, CO 2 DISSOLVED could help the deployment of BECCS, and – hopefully negaTve emissions
-
Upload
cfcc15 -
Category
Environment
-
view
30 -
download
0
Transcript of Poster: NEGATIVE EMISSIONS IN ENERGY TRANSITION – THE CASE OF GEOLOGICAL CARBON STORAGE
NEGATIVE EMISSIONS IN ENERGY TRANSITION – THE CASE OF GEOLOGICAL CARBON STORAGE
Audrey Laude-‐Depezay (Laboratoire REGARDS, Université de Reims Champagne-‐Ardenne), Xavier Galiègue (Laboratoire d’Economie d’Orléans, Université d’Orléans)
Contact: Audrey Laude-‐Depezay -‐ audrey.laude-‐depezay@univ-‐reims.fr
Xavier Galiègue-‐ xavier.galiegue@univ-‐orleans.fr
Acknowledgments: The CO2-‐DISSOLVED coordinated by the BRGM, is funded by the French NaTonal Research Agency (ANR)
Web site: hVp://co2-‐dissolved.brgm.fr
Nega7ve emissions role for bending CO2 world emissions curve • «NegaTve emissions» means that more GHG emissions are avoided than emiVed during a producTon process. • It results in a net storage of CO2, not only a reducTon. • NegaTve emissions could help reducing GHG a l r e a d y em i V e d i n t h e atmosphere. • It could be a soluTon to recTfy the GHG emissions path, regarding different emissions scenarios.
a) b)
Key messages
The industrial plant emits CO2 that is compressed with cold brine (moderately/highly salted water) into the “injecTon well” where it is enTrely dissolved into brine before reaching the targeted underground storing reservoir (aquifer). The injected brine was first pumped out from the same aquifer via the “producTon well” so that water circulates in a closed loop between the two wells. Before being reinjected, the thermal energy contained in the extracted brine is recovered at the surface trough a heat exchanger system. This thermal energy is then used to feed a local heat network and/or to partly supply the own energy needs of the industrial emiVer.
MLP analyses transiTon as a mutaTon process : • from one sociotechnical regime to another, • under the pressure of macro-‐level forces (the landscape), • and the emergence of market niches / innovaTons that
could provide the basis of the new regime .
Adjacent figure coming from : Fuss et al. (2014). Beeng on negaTve emissions. Nature Climate Change, vol 4.
From Kervevan et al. (2014)
Adapted from Geels and Shot (2007)
Nega7ve emissions could be achieved with BECCS (BioEnergy and Carbon Capture & Storage)
+ +/-‐ -‐ a) b) c) d)
=
SchemaTc design of the carbon flows associated to the producTon of energy from fossil fuels (a), fossil fuel with carbon storage (CCS) (b), bioenergy ( c) et Bioenergy coupled with carbon storage, BECCS (d).
CCS synergy with renewables : Which role in energy transi7on?
A Mul7-‐Level Transi7on Perspec7ve (MLP) CCS is perceived as a niche coming from the current regime (Geels, 2014) It helps to pursue fossil fuel use It could be an example of resistance to change of inner actors Risk of actors understatement of CCS uncertainTes (Arranz, 2015) CCS on fossil fuels could slow down the energy transi7on in : 1 – Reinforcing carbon lock-‐in : • CCS is costly as it generates high capital costs in equipment and infrastructure (e.g. Pipelines Networks), mostly sunk.
• Higher OperaTng Costs through a rise of Demand for electricity required by the process (energy penalty).
• So Neither firms nor governments cannot go back easily to their decision to implement CCS
2-‐ Diver7ng resources from renewable energies • Subsidizing CCS could reduce financial incenPves to renewables energy • CCS could be a signal that fossil fuels use will go on, reducing investment in renewables
Case 1 : CCS on fossil fuels
CO2-‐DISSOLVED technology: Improving CCS and BECCS with Geothermal Energy
…..which needs to match geothermal resources with small
CO2 emiYers
A Synergy between CCS and geothermal energy
ImplemenTng CO2 DISSOLVED Technology on a large scale will require to match small CO2 sources and geothermal sources. Two promising areas have been idenTfied in France.
Nega7ve Emissions, Energy transi7on and BECCS
General modeling of MLP . CCS in MLP
• Here « Landscape » is climate change, but economic crisis or world energy demand increase also contribute to it.
• The socio-‐technical régime is the current energy system, based on centralized energy producTon, using fossil fuels and nuclear energy.
• The innovaTons are renewable energies that could compete or be used in synergy with CCS
Case 2 : CCS and bioenergy (BECCS) • BECCS reduces the risk of carbon lock-‐in (Vergragt et al, 2011) • Thanks to nega7ve emissions, BECCS could reduce GHG already emiYed But : • Bioenergies could generate deep land-‐use changes and a loss of biodiversity
• Matching between bioenergies, demand locaTon and CCS storage could reduce the technological potenTal
• And : CCS needs large scale effects and is not well-‐adapted for small or medium emiYers, as bioenergy emiYers are o\en.
Advantages of CO2-‐DISSOLVED
Designed for small emiVers
Reduced energy penalty
Increased safety of storage
Weak contribuTon to carbon lock-‐in
Poten7al Matching in France
• NegaTve emissions could be provided by BECCS (Bioenergy and CCS)
• But, Bioenergy emiVers are oken smaller than fossil fuels emiVers, as coal-‐fired plant, while CCS needs big scale effects.
• CO2-‐DISSOLVED is a soluTon for small and medium emiVers (CA< 150000T/yr)
• Despite addiTonal constraints on geological characterisTc of the storage site, CO2-‐DISSOLVED could help the deployment of BECCS, and – hopefully-‐ negaTve emissions
![Solution for non-negative ffCO2 emissions ‒ Incorporate priors ‒ Solve, using StOMP [1] ‒ StOMP solution does not give non-negative ffCO2 emissions; a.](https://static.fdocuments.net/doc/165x107/56649eab5503460f94bb0bfa/solution-for-non-negative-ffco2-emissions-incorporate-priors-solve.jpg)
